Re: [Shorewall-users] Solved Re: Shorewall6 on Fedora 36

2022-07-28 Thread PGNet Dev
On 7/28/22 1:55 PM, Eric Teeter wrote: As it doesn't seam to effect anything It affects Traffic Shaping. I have used it on Debian and didn't have an issue in Debian shorewall depends on iproute2 in Debian tc is installed by iproute2 ___

Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall6 on Fedora 36

2022-07-28 Thread PGNet Dev
On 7/28/22 10:47 AM, Eric Teeter wrote: I'm assuming there's a missing dependency for tc. Anyone know what needs to installed? https://shorewall.org/shorewall_prerequisites.htm Shorewall Requires: A Linux kernel that supports Netfilter (No, it won't work on BSD or

Re: [Shorewall-users] DNAT routes Net -> ExternalServer -> VPN -> InternalServer correctly, but *return* not routed BACK over VPN. DNAT, SNAT, or routing?

2021-07-06 Thread PGNet Dev
Hi, On 7/6/21 4:31 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: Shorewall @ "Public Server": /rules ACCEPT net$FW:AA.AA.AA.AAtcp12345 DNATnetvpn:10.10.10.99tcp12345- AA.AA.AA.AA Shorewall @

[Shorewall-users] DNAT routes Net -> ExternalServer -> VPN -> InternalServer correctly, but *return* not routed BACK over VPN. DNAT, SNAT, or routing?

2021-07-06 Thread PGNet Dev
I'm setting up public access to a remote/internal server, on a specific port, over a private VPN. Topology is: Net | | eth0 (IP = AA.AA.AA.AA) "Public Server" (Shorewall) | vpn0 <-> "Private Edge:vpn0" | | eth0 (IP =

Re: [Shorewall-users] Dynamic var usage in /snat? var fails functionally, without error; static data works OK in same rule

2021-07-05 Thread PGNet Dev
Justin, On 7/5/21 7:13 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: Could you try &{MYIPV6} ? ... The docs say this, so if it's empty, that would make sense. https://shorewall.org/configuration_file_basics.htm#AddressVariables |A second form is also available beginning with Shorewall 4.5.11 |%{variable} |Unlike

[Shorewall-users] Dynamic var usage in /snat? var fails functionally, without error; static data works OK in same rule

2021-07-05 Thread PGNet Dev
In a shorewall6-lite 5.2.8 config, I want to get externally defined data (an IP6 addr), cat /etc/shorewall/MYIP6.current [2600:::xxx0::56] and assign its content to a dynamic variable for use in SW Selecting from Extension Scripts (User Exits)

Re: [Shorewall-users] last missing Shorewall6 piece, ping6 from LAN to 'NET ?

2021-05-19 Thread PGNet Dev
thad, look with tcpdump @ icmp6 traffic across your ext router interface while you ping6 from your lan; for your setup tcpdump -n -i enp2s0 icmp6 you'll likely see 'echo request' going out, from your desktop IP address, but no 'echo reply' returning. the "net" needs to know to

Re: [Shorewall-users] incorrect routeback path -- missing DNAT rules or MARKs?

2021-01-21 Thread PGNet Dev
I've added provider marks @ Router1 /providers #NAMENUMMARK DUPINTFC GW OPTS ispA 1 0x100- EXT_IFdetect track,balance vpnA 2 0x200- VPN_IF10.1.1.2track,fallback @ Router2

[Shorewall-users] incorrect routeback path -- missing DNAT rules or MARKs?

2021-01-21 Thread PGNet Dev
I've got 2 routers, both running shorewall, and a server. I'm trying to get routeback working correctly for the following config. Currently, inbound traffic gets to its intended DEST, but the reply routes back over the wrong path. I'm missing some some route(back) config; the DNAT rules don't

[Shorewall-users] need a rule! going bonkers :-(

2020-11-23 Thread PGNet Dev
ok, 'UNCLE!' what shorewall rule do I need to PASS this 2020-11-23T19:53:48.470332-08:00 test kernel: SW:[P4]OUTPUT:REJECT IN= OUT=enp3s0 SRC=10.100.100.100 DST=10.100.100.130 LEN=112 TOS=0x00 PREC=0xC0 TTL=64 ID=22257 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=3 CODE=1 [SRC=10.100.100.130 DST=10.100.100.100 LEN=84

Re: [Shorewall-users] Please assist with configuration to transparent tunnel from public access on one server, over a vpn, to service on an internal server

2020-09-30 Thread PGNet Dev
On 9/30/20 10:52 AM, JadoNena via Shorewall-users wrote: >> Everything you need should be on that page, below the text I quoted. > > It isn't. None of that answers the question I asked. That's why I am asking. > But ok anyway. > > I removed Shorewall and switched to OPNsense. It took care of

Re: [Shorewall-users] provider config fails with fatal Error: ... "invalid table ID" ?

2020-09-09 Thread PGNet Dev
On 9/9/20 12:56 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: > Ignore my last post -- /etc/iproute2/rt_tables IS automatically updated, > unless KEEP_RT_TABLES=Yes. ah, that'd provide an explanation I'd 'imported' USE_RT_NAMES=Yes from prior configs, and (likely) had never touched

Re: [Shorewall-users] provider config fails with fatal Error: ... "invalid table ID" ?

2020-09-09 Thread PGNet Dev
On 9/9/20 10:07 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > Have you set USE_RT_NAMES=Yes? That setting will cause provider names to > appear in 'ip' commands rather that provider numbers. With > USE_RT_NAMES=Yes, you must edit /etc/iproute2/rt_tables to provide the > proper name->number mappings. yep,

[Shorewall-users] variable default/fallback syntax with dynamic AddressVariables?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
i've set /init DYN_IP=$( dig A dyn.example.com @1.1.1.1 +short 2>/dev/null ) then use %{DYN_IP} in my SW configs, e.g. in /rules. if I want to add a fallback value, what's the correct syntax/usage? in fool_sm config, e.g., I use the form

Re: [Shorewall-users] clarification on AddressVariable usage scope?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/8/20 10:32 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > Why not assign this host a static IP address via DHCP? That's what I do > with my local systems. hm... not sure I follow. the 'local' box does get its external IPv4 address from the ISP. ( technically, it's actually getting it from the modem, configured

Re: [Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/8/20 10:16 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > As shipped, shorewall6.conf includes 'AllowICMPs' in the > BLACKLIST_DEFAULT, DROP_DEFAULT, and REJECT_DEFAULT settings. The > AllowICMPs action accepts all ICMP6 packet types required by RFC 4890. it that's sufficient, then I'm good. atm, my

Re: [Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/8/20 8:13 AM, Simon Hobson wrote: > I am really not an expert in IPv6 :-( heh. is _anyone_? much voudou req'd! ;-) > will drop it AND send back an ICMP6 PTB (Packet Too Big) message to the > source - thus explicitly telling the source to use smaller packets for that > flow. If the PTB

[Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
 i've setup dualstack IPv4 & IPv6 across my lan. IPv4 via my local ISP's gateway; IPv6 over a wireguard VPN link through a cloud VM, using native IPv6. shorewall(6)-lite is is place on all boxes. afaict so far, all IPv6 traffic flows -- at least, I've had no widespread issues browsing ...

Re: [Shorewall-users] clarification on AddressVariable usage scope?

2020-06-07 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/7/20 1:47 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: > Yes. As a general rule, address variables can be used anywhere that a > host IP address can be used, unless documented otherwise. great, thx. that takes care of the 'local' shorewall instance's tracking etc of a dynamic IP address. that 'local' IP

[Shorewall-users] clarification on AddressVariable usage scope?

2020-06-07 Thread PGNet Dev
if i define a static param value in /params MY_STATIC_IP=1.2.3.4 i can use, e.g., /snat SNAT($MY_STATIC_IP) ... if, instead I define an AddressVariable /init MY_DYN_IP=$( cat /some/path/to/latest_EXT_IP ) is this, then,

Re: [Shorewall-users] redirecting ALL ipv6 local/lan traffic over a wireguard VPN to/through remote's external interface. almost there ... routing issue?

2020-06-05 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/5/20 4:11 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: >> That rule will be wiped out the next time you 'shorewall6 reload' or verified that to be the case moved all the wireguard-config ip(6)tables @remote rules to shorewall kept only the iproute rules in wireguard config @remote added a system override

Re: [Shorewall-users] redirecting ALL ipv6 local/lan traffic over a wireguard VPN to/through remote's external interface. almost there ... routing issue?

2020-06-05 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/5/20 3:56 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >> *AND* @remote, >> >> /etc/wireguard/wg0 >> >> +PostUp = ip6tables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE >> +PostDown = ip6tables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE >> > > That rule will be wiped out the next

Re: [Shorewall-users] redirecting ALL ipv6 local/lan traffic over a wireguard VPN to/through remote's external interface. almost there ... routing issue?

2020-06-05 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/2/20 9:24 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: > I know nothing about Wireguard, but this article seems relevant (note > the 'Required key not available): > > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232754 good hint! adding @local, /etc/wireguard/wg0 + AllowedIPs =

Re: [Shorewall-users] redirecting ALL ipv6 local/lan traffic over a wireguard VPN to/through remote's external interface. almost there ... routing issue?

2020-06-02 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/2/20 2:28 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: > For route (such as these) in the main routing table, I prefer the system > networking config files. easily enough done in wireguard conf, @remote /etc/wireguard/wg0.conf [Interface] ... + PostUp = ip

Re: [Shorewall-users] redirecting ALL ipv6 local/lan traffic over a wireguard VPN to/through remote's external interface. almost there ... routing issue?

2020-06-01 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/1/20 4:51 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >> @ local > You are missing a default route: via fd10:254:254::1 dev wg0 >> @ remote > That route is incorrect -- it should be via fd10:254:254::1 dev wg0. Thanks! Obviously non-obvious to me :-/ Such routes can be set/handled by system

[Shorewall-users] redirecting ALL ipv6 local/lan traffic over a wireguard VPN to/through remote's external interface. almost there ... routing issue?

2020-05-30 Thread PGNet Dev
hi, i've got two linux machines uname -rm 5.6.15-24.gfe7831e-default x86_64 iptables -V iptables v1.8.4 (legacy) connected via a wireguard VPN. shorewall{,6}-lite, v5.2.4.5 runs on both. The two machines are config'd as (1) remote

Re: [Shorewall-users] Is it necessary to restart the firewall when updating ipset.

2020-03-21 Thread PGNet Dev
On 3/21/20 9:44 AM, Witold Tosta wrote: > Is it necessary to restart the shorewall firewall when the cronjob script > updates the ipset? fyi, https://shorewall.org/ipsets.html#Ipsets ... Zone definition. Using the /etc/shorewall/hosts file, you can define a zone based on the (dynamic)

Re: [Shorewall-users] each package upgrade of shorewall* causes blocking; restart fixes the problem -- is shorewall-init involved?

2020-03-16 Thread PGNet Dev
On 3/16/20 1:27 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: > With your configuration, shorewall-init is ensuring that only > connections allowed by your 'stopped' configurations are being allowed > between the time that your external interface(s) comes up and the time > that shorewall-lite and shorewall6-lite are

[Shorewall-users] each package upgrade of shorewall* causes blocking; restart fixes the problem -- is shorewall-init involved?

2020-03-16 Thread PGNet Dev
i'm running distro-pkg'd shorewall 5.2.3.7, on opensuse leap15.1. it's deployed on my boxes as shorewall-lite + shorewall-init. once up, it runs fine. on upgrade by package manager, "Something(tm)" in the install process causes the fw to immediately start blocking traffic. if the upgrade's in

Re: [Shorewall-users] Ping from a Amazon FireStick to LAN -- good via IP; fails via hostname? is this a FW issue, or other?

2019-12-09 Thread PGNet Dev
On 12/7/19 10:38 PM, Matt Darfeuille wrote: > HTH. It did, thx! Mainly to confirm that this is NOT a firewall issue. Rather this FireStick is flaky as all get out ... NO problems with any vanilla Android- or X86-stick. Knowing that, I've got some options to play with. o/

[Shorewall-users] Ping from a Amazon FireStick to LAN -- good via IP; fails via hostname? is this a FW issue, or other?

2019-12-07 Thread PGNet Dev
I'm inserting an Amazon FireStick (Android-based) into my lan. All SW firewall/routing/etc is done on a linux box for my LAN. The FireStick needs to communicate with a server @ 10.1.1.101 on my lan. The target's got fwd/reverse DNS setup, host target.lan.loc

Re: [Shorewall-users] Disobeying Settings to Allow SMTP

2017-10-27 Thread PGNet Dev
On 10/27/17 8:48 AM, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote: In fact half the time, REJECTs and DROPs are -not- logged, and I have to figure out why without the aid of informational messages. Shorewall does a great job of doing exactly what it's told to do. If "half the time, REJECTs and DROPs are

Re: [Shorewall-users] How-to enable Ipset support?

2017-03-31 Thread PGNet Dev
On 03/31/2017 02:47 AM, norm.aud...@gmail.com wrote: > I wonder if that is such a good idea... Actually quite handy when centrally managing/compiling multiple firewalls for differently configured remotes. Each remote's data dir gets its own capabilities file ...

Re: [Shorewall-users] How-to enable Ipset support?

2017-03-30 Thread PGNet Dev
On 03/30/2017 11:14 AM, PGNet Dev wrote: > And what's in your `capabilities` file for the FW you're compiling? Just in case, consider also regenerating your capabilities file, to match your actual/current capabilities, specifically including ipset after having installed/upgraded it c

Re: [Shorewall-users] How-to enable Ipset support?

2017-03-30 Thread PGNet Dev
On 03/30/2017 11:04 AM, Norman Henderson wrote: > Thanks, both of you. The possibly significant difference in ipset list > is that I have Revision: 6 versus 5. (ipset -v gives v6.29, protocol > version: 6) here, it's ipset -v ipset v6.32, protocol version: 6 as well

Re: [Shorewall-users] How-to enable Ipset support?

2017-03-30 Thread PGNet Dev
On 03/30/2017 09:34 AM, Matt Darfeuille wrote: > On 3/30/2017 8:34 AM, Norman Henderson wrote: >> Thank you Ian. Matt, I've done some more tests and this really looks like a >> shorewall bug. Did you update your capabilities? What's the output of shorewall-lite show capabilities | grep

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bot ban by --string 'ylmf-pc'

2016-04-04 Thread PGNet Dev
On 04/04/2016 08:27 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > You will probably need to use this form instead or the compiler will > complain about the quotes: > > INLINE(DROP) net $FW tcp 25 ; -m string --algo bm --string 'ylmf-pc' string matches in SW rules appear quite useful. I tend to organize my *IP* lists

[Shorewall-users] sw 4.6.13 (1) 'reload' fails to compile for remote instance; equi manual steps OK, (2) fails to execute firewall on kernel 4.3.0; on kernel 3.16.x OK

2015-11-18 Thread PGNet Dev
I compile SW configs locally, and push to remote shorewall-lite instances. I've recently upgraded my build machine to shorewall version 4.6.13 uname -r 4.3.0-3.g733f8ab-default Two new issues have cropped up. (1) When the remote's

Re: [Shorewall-users] SW v5-specific "build50" script: OK for tarball build, fails @ rpm build ?

2015-11-10 Thread PGNet Dev
> Have you checked your .rpmmacros file? cat ~/.rpmmacros %_topdir %(echo $HOME)/rpmbuild %_smp_mflags %( \ [ -z "$RPM_BUILD_NCPUS" ] \\\ && RPM_BUILD_NCPUS="`/usr/bin/nproc 2>/dev/null || \\\ /usr/bin/getconf

Re: [Shorewall-users] SW v5-specific "build50" script: OK for tarball build, fails @ rpm build ?

2015-11-09 Thread PGNet Dev
> I don't see how this can be a defect in build50: > > teastep@gateway:~/shorewall/tools/build$ fgrep rpmbuild build50 > do_rpmbuild() { > RPM=yes rpmbuild --target noarch-linux $@ >> $LOGFILE 2>&1 > do_or_die do_rpmbuild "-ba $RPMDIR/SPECS/${2}.spec" >

Re: [Shorewall-users] SW v5-specific "build50" script: OK for tarball build, fails @ rpm build ?

2015-11-09 Thread PGNet Dev
On 11/09/2015 08:29 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > On 11/09/2015 07:24 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > >> >> I realized this morning that this is most likely due to missing 5.0.1 >> tracking branches. In that case, the build will use the 'master' branch >> which is 5.0.2-RC1. >> >> In both the 'release' and

[Shorewall-users] build procedure for shorewall-xml-docs for v5x?

2015-11-08 Thread PGNet Dev
I'm working on rpm-packaging v5x from upstream sources. The unpacked docs tarball shorewall-docs-xml-5.0.1.1 provides the doc source files in, obviously, xml format. Old SW 4x versions provided the build45/build46 scripts -- afaict, there's no equivalent for v5x (there's an old build5 --

Re: [Shorewall-users] build procedure for shorewall-xml-docs for v5x?

2015-11-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 11/08/2015 01:04 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: > Why don't you simply download shorewall-docs-html.5.0.1.1? Simply because there are no v5.0-specific docs suggesting to do so, and, as we'd just recently chatted in #irc, I'm trying to put together a complete build, with doc-gaps filled, for v5 for

[Shorewall-users] SW v5-specific "build50" script: OK for tarball build, fails @ rpm build ?

2015-11-08 Thread PGNet Dev
Building v5x using the newly available 'build50' script, the tarball build's OK build50 -tcslL6ix 5.0.1.1 ... Creating /usr/local/src/SHOREWALL-BUILD/build/shorewall-docs-xml-5.0.1.1 tarballs Shorewall 5.0.1.1 Build complete - Sun Nov 8

[Shorewall-users] Invalid Mark or Mask value in shorewall6 MultiISP setup

2015-08-18 Thread PGNet Dev
I'm modifying a shorewall6-lite instance to MultiISP support. My initial config -- migrated from a working IPv4 multiISP setup -- is /providers ... native6 1 0x100 main EXT_IF detect track,balance 10 he6 2 0x200 main

Re: [Shorewall-users] limiting IPv6 rule access to just next-hop, dynamic link-local address?

2015-08-11 Thread PGNet Dev
On 08/11/2015 01:08 AM, Simon Hobson wrote: Unless I'm missing something, packets to/from link local addresses won't be routed - and so should never go past the first hop. If that's the case -- makes sense, now that you mention, but worth a check -- then ACCEPT net:fe80::/10 $FW udp 546

[Shorewall-users] limiting IPv6 rule access to just next-hop, dynamic link-local address?

2015-08-10 Thread pgnet . dev
I've switched ISPs, and need to pull an IPv6 dhcp6-lease from the ISP provided modem. To get the lease I opened ACCEPT net:fe80::::36df:cef3:332d2:aac1 $FW udp 546 where the [fe80::::36df:cef3:332d2:aac1] is the LinkLocal address of the modem's internal