This bug was fixed in the package ufw - 0.27~r416-0ubuntu1
---
ufw (0.27~r416-0ubuntu1) jaunty; urgency=low
* new upstream release
- don't do symlink check anymore (LP: #317700)
- don't do hidden file check anymore (LP: #319226)
- add insert rule support (LP: #260745)
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
--
ufw should support insertion of rules
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260745
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-b
** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
--
ufw should support insertion of rules
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260745
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@
Regarding status output, the intent is for the status output to be as
easy to understand as possible. That said, recently ufw has 'ufw status
verbose' and 'ufw status raw' which should help in some ways. I do agree
that it would be helpful to show the ufw rules as well, and will be
adding a 'ufw st
Regarding status output, the intent is for the status output to be easy
to be as easy to understand as possible. That said, recently ufw has
'ufw status verbose' and 'ufw status raw' which should help in some
ways. I do agree that it would be helpful to show the ufw rules as well,
and will be addin
You are most welcome JeSTeR7.
When you have the time, and if you have the interest, one thing that I
really like about UFW is that the syntax of UFW rules is very similar to
the actual iptables rules.
With many of the "others" you have to learn what sometimes seems like
esoteric rules that do not
I'd like to agree that this seems like a necessary feature of any
firewall software. Anybody who actively monitors their firewall would
need the ability to block IP addresses that attempt intrusion. I
thought I was doing this, seeing as giving a 'ufw status' command would
tell me that the IP addr
I've run into what Roland is describing, and I quite agree that the
status output (or perhaps another command like 'ufw rules') should match
input commands. I once set a rule that was wrong and it took me ages to
figure out exactly the right syntax to remove it - it should not even be
necessary for
'sudo ufw status' report:
To ActionFrom
Anywhere DENY221.192.199.36 80:tcp
80:tcp ALLOW Anywhere
80:udp ALLOW Anywhere
Anywhere DENY221.192.199.36
But command syntax is:
ufw allo
I would like to suggest having ufw read a configuration file instead of
getting all its rules from the command line.
Order is important, and getting that order right is the biggest PITA. If I mess
up the order, I can just edit the
config file and re-run 'sudo ufw enable'. That should clear all pr
** Summary changed:
- Editing UFW rules
+ ufw should support insertion of rules
--
ufw should support insertion of rules
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260745
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo
