I'm trying to configure Iptables and I just want to block everything but http/https. However, my connection is pppoe, so I have the ppp0 interface. Pretty much every Iptables tutorial that I found don't teach how to deal with this kind of setup. I'm forwarding the ppp0 to eth0 and I could configure the input rules and they're working. After this, I need to configure the output but nothing seems to work.
The current working rules are:
Code:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 7858 packets, 5792K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
299 201K ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:www
0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https
11 820 DROP all -- any any anywhere anywhere
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 ppp0 anywhere anywhere
0 0 ACCEPT all -- ppp0 eth0 anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 10791 packets, 1951K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
I don't understand what those "state RELATED,ESTABLISHED" rules do. Also, I don't know if this rules are secure, because i'm very confused about the ppp0/eth0 interfaces.
I two servers set up: 192.168.1.150 and 192.168.1.160 Initially, I want all traffic to be served by server 150. So for this purpose I am leaving the IPTables on .150 empty. At a point in time, I want to forward all incoming traffic to be served by .160 instead. I have accomplished this using these commands (on .150):
My problem is that if I have an open SSH connection to .150 (prior to adding the rules), the packets are still handled by .150 after adding the rules.. e.g. my SSH session stays active. I want these packets to be forwarded to .160, which would effectively disconnect the SSH session. I do not want the packets flat out dropped, I just want them forwarded on in whatever state they are in. If I try a new SSH session, it is properly forwarded to .160
On a Fedora 11 machine, I configured ppp0 on eth0 and ppp1 on eth1, each one is connected to a modem, I also defined ppp0 as the default gateway.. Should I do anything else to load balance the 2 connections or will ppp1 take some of the load by default? Should I add any other routing rules? If yes then please tell me what should I add, keeping in mind that for each pppoe connection both the pppoe address and the remote address are not static so I actually needed some scripting to change the default gateway each time the remote pppoe address changes.
I have setup my linux fedora server and i want to restrict access to my server.Basically i control using iptables.I'm not sure how to write an iptables rules to control drop all connection to port 8080 and allow only certain ip can access the instance on port 8080 example ip=10.254.14.16,192.168.1.10.
I'm trying to use these cookie cutter rules that I found. But every time I use them, after a few seconds my wifi connection goes dead. The exception was the first time I used then. Which lasted me a couple of minutes.
By dead I mean I can no longer open a webpage or ping google.
iptables -N LOGGING iptables -A INPUT -j LOGGING iptables -A OUTPUT -j LOGGING iptables -A LOGGING -m limit --limit 2/min -j LOG --log-prefix "IPTables-Dropped: " --log-level 4 iptables -A LOGGING -j DROP
Seems like this should be a simple question, but I've looked around and have not found an obvious location to keep custom policy based routing rules in Ubuntu./etc/network/if-up.d comes to mind, but I was wondering is that was a "standard" spot. Also it doesn't seem like these rules really need to run each time an interface is up'ed or down'ed.
I added a few rules to my /etc/iptables.rules file and then used sudo iptables-restore < /etc/iptables.rules but i got an error saying "iptables-restore: line 29 failed".But the only word on that line.
I am establishing a VPN connection with a Cisco VPN server, but only want outgoing connections to a certain set of IP addresses to actually go through the VPN. I tried something like this:
Code: sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -t mangle -p tcp -d 111.222.0.0/16 -j ROUTE --oif tun0 but keep getting
I am running into trouble while trying to set-up a iptables routing policy. I have two machines on the same sub-network (xxx.xxx.153.0). One of the machines is used as a default gw for the other (xxx.xxx.153.250 is a gateway for xxx.xxx.153.142 and xxx.xxx.153.254 is a gw for xxx.xxx.153.250). There is no explanation for why the xxx.xxx.153.250 is in the middle -- xxx.xxx.153.142 can go straight to xxx.xxx.153.254, but is is like that for now.I am trying to find an iptable rule to be executed on the xxx.xxx.153.250 machine to route the packets.
I have 2 Linux boxes one acting as a router with a direct connection to the internet, second as a server using the first box as a gateway to the internet. I need to forward requests that I get from the outside to port 8400 to my internal server box at 192.168.0.7:8400
Router IP 192.168.0.5 Server IP 192.168.0.7 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -d [internet ip] --dport 8400 -j DNAT
[code]...
These rules are on the router (192.168.0.5) I've been trying to find a solution for hours with no success. Basically the problem is I can forward ports on the same box but not to a different ip.
I need with some iptables rules. I've done all I can, Googling all over, to cover as many exploits as possible and the following script is what I've come up with. The current set up works and I've checked with NMAP. I just need some sort of confirmation that this is pretty much what I can do.
Code:
LAN="eth0 eth1" RANGE=10.1.0.0/17 WAN=eth2 # Delete all existing rules
[code]....
Also, if I wanted a broadcast to be relayed to all subnets within a defined range, how would such a iptables rule look like? I need this in order to find a networked Canon MP640 printer.
I just install 1 firewall using Iptables. Firewall includes 2 NIC: NIC1 <IP PUBLIC> NIC2 192.168.10.1 I installed 1 web server IP: 192.168.10.2 I have some PC IP range: 192.168.10.10->20
I set rules NAT on firewall and PC & web server can connect internet good, but I have problems: When PC access to web server with IP 192.168.10.2 that ok, but PC can't access to web server when using IP Public. But outside internet, I can access to web server using IP Public.
Rules on IPTables Code: # Generated by iptables-save v1.3.5 on Sun Mar 7 21:01:16 2010 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [950:126970] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [89:5880] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [19:1342] -A PREROUTING -d 209.99.242.124 -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.10.2:80 -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.10.0/24 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source 209.99.242.124 *filter :INPUT DROP [1599:157409] :FORWARD DROP [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [232:34452] -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -d 192.168.10.2 -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o eth1 -j ACCEPT COMMIT
I have an Untangle Box - which for those that don't know is a modified Debian Lenny used as a router, proxy, filter and much more - It has three physical interfaces on it eht0 (incoming traffic), eth1 (Outgoing to LAN after traffic filtered), and eth2 (Called a DMZ NIC, as Untangle can be used as a router). There is also a tun0 interface setup by Untangle for VPN (Not using the Openvpn in Untangle because I need bridged a bridged VPN and this is not an option in Untangles offering), a br0.eth setup by untangle to bridge eth0 and eth1 for traffic flow through as it is inline from router to switch and not acting as the router itself, and a br0 interface that I have setup by bridge script bridging eth2 and tap0 to run OpenVPN as a bridged VPN.
The routes on the machine are as follow: Code: untangle:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 br.eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 br0 192.0.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 dummy0 192.0.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 utun untangle:~#
I don't see a default route listed here, however, I do have Internet connectivity on the Untangle box itself. I also know that by script to bridge the tap0 and eth2 interfaces adds a default route through the gateway on the network that eth2 is connected to. So the lack of a default route is somewhat puzzling to me, I do have the gateway set through the web based admin interface Untangle offers.
The iptables rules are as follow: Code: untangle:~# iptables --list-rules -P INPUT ACCEPT -P FORWARD ACCEPT -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -N alpaca-firewall .....
There was an addition output rule in the alpaca-nat-firewall rule that said DROP outgoing interface eth2, I removed that rule with no change. I can ping out from the Untangle server to the eth2 LAN, I can access resources in the eth2 subnet. But I cannot get any reply from the server from anything either in that subnet or not. If I run iftop I can see the incoming traffic form my ping but the Server sends out no reply. I think this is a firewall issue. I can access the server by connecting to the IP assigned to the eth0/br0.eth interface which is in my main LAN. I am also attaching a crude diagram of the previous setup and the new setup (Previous setup used a different server for my bridged VPN).
Is there a rule I can add to ensure that traffic coming in on an interface goes out the same interface? Do I have a rule blocking incoming traffic to eth2/br0? Do I have one blocking sending out on eth2/br0? Do I have a default rule that is killing the traffic on eth2/br0 and I need to add an accept rule for traffic coming in on eth2/br0? I tried adding an accept rule for traffic coming in on br0, but it didn't work. I tried an output rule, but that didn't work, but I may have been bungling these rules as I do not fully understand the syntax and function and body of an iptables rule. The exact original iptables information before I modified anything can be viewed at [URL].
I have a CentOS box which is Internet Facing. It has 3 LAN's connected to it which are for virtual machines.
I want to port forward port 445 to a machine on one of the LAN interfaces. I have tried various ways to get it done, but still cannot access that port from the interface. I definately know device hosting port 445 is live, as I can ping it from the CentOS box and use lynx to access it! (It's a web server)
I've been Googling about port forwarding iptables and even though there's result and I've applied it in my script, I can't make iptables forwading request to another machine so I decided to ask help.
eth0 is my Internet Interface (1.2.3.4 is the public ip) eth1 is my Lan Interface eth2 is my DMZ Interface
I have 2 Ubuntu boxes sitting in the same subnet; server 1 [130.15.6.68] and server 2 [130.15.6.69] What I am trying to achieve here is the following: server 1 act as a gateway or proxy to server 2, meaning that server 1 is exposed to the Internet and all traffic to server 2 should go though it (i hope!).
server 2 act as application server and I don't want a direct access to it from the internet. I want all the inbound traffic comes through server 1. for testing purposes, i will limit the traffic to simple http or port 80
in server 1, i have done the following settings: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 -d 130.15.6.68 --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 130.15.6.69:80 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -i eth0 -d 130.15.6.69 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT In server 1, I've edited the value of net.ipv4.ip_forward to equal 1 (uncomment that line in /etc/sysctl.conf) Currently, both server 1 and server 2 has its own apache2 servers with different index.html files. the problem is, when i browse to server 1, I am still seeing its index page rather than being forwarded to the index page of server 2. how can i achieve the traffic forwarding from server 1 to server 2 when my browser pointing to server 1?
I have a server running debian squeeze and kvm to virtualize a Windoze box. It's setup to use NAT. This is because of limits on the network by the admin and unfortunately, there isn't a way to get around this.
I am running a server with ssh and a vpn server set up. It is behind a debian router with a firewall which uses iptables. i have it set up to forward ports 22 and 443 to ssh on a computer within the LAN(so when on a restricted network i can still ssh into my network) and forward anything to 1723(for my vpn) to that box also. However, the only port that gets successfully forwarded is port 22. The other two appear closed. here is what the script looks like:
I'm trying to setup PPPoE connection to establish my DSL connection, but I got
Code: pppoe[3885]: read (asyncReadFromPPP): Session 4479: Input/output error pppd[4104]: Cannot determine ethernet address for proxy ARP in my sylog file.
When I do pppoe-start, it connected but I cannot ping into any destination (even to my modem in the same network). DNS servers are explicitly set in pppoe.conf and resolv.conf. Did I miss anything?
I am trying solve a strange problem which ocurred after upgrading many packages including kernel and iptables.This is a Fedora 10 PC acting as a small home-server I've been using over a year without problems. Recently, I've run a yum upgrade and after that, connections outside home wouldn't work. No changes in IPtables (firewall) rules have been done. But connection through local network is working.Symptom is.I've connected to my second PC at home and connected to the server. It works fine on local network. I restart network services (service network restart) and outside connections could be established.I have disabled iptables and ip6tables and after reboots it works fine. But PC is running without firewall.
I'm trying to configure NFS sharing behind a firewall, I got it to work and all but I was caught by something that (to me anyways) seems odd.I've been able to mount the export on another computer and am transferring files over as we speak, but I'm just interested in knowing why the RELATED,ESTABLISHED rule seems to be catching almost all the traffic coming from the other node. Any ideas? Should I be concerned that my firewall isn't protecting anything or something?
Whenever I add a rule to iptables, all of the policy counters reset. The counters for each individual rule remain intact, however, the main counter resets. Here's what I mean:
Code: [root] ~ # iptables -vL Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 65M packets, 83G bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 50M packets, 30G bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination .....
The following is my setup. wireless server (ip of this server is 192.168.1.1) -- target board ( wireless client [ip of this is got for wireless server is 192.168.1.3 ] , bridge (192.168.36.1) )-- linux pc ( 192.168.36.3) as show above i have target board for that i have a wireless interface and a linux pc is connected to target board.now the ips are like this for linux pc 192.168.36.3 and my target board bridge ip s 192.168.36.1
my wireless interface got ip from another server like 192.168.1.3 ,now if i do ping on my target board for 192.168.1.1 it goes through wireless interface to the 192.168.1.1 wireless server.but when i do the same from target board connected linux pc its not pinging from linux pc i could able to ping to 192.168.1.3 but not 192.168.1.1 .I think i need to write a iptable rule properly on my target board to forward the 192.168.1.* packtes to wireless interface.
I've used iptables since it replace ipchains, and I've never had a problem like this.The problem is, as you can see by the title, that port forwarding simply does not work.
network topology: Slackware Linux Server: eth0 - LAN (192.168.0.0/25) eth1 - DSL Static IP eth2 - cable Static IP
eth1 is our standard office connection; it handles all of our default traffic (web browsing for the staff, email, etc). eth2 is our VPN connection, as well as use for all incoming connections (www, etc). Behind the linux box I have a series of Windows Server 2008 R2 boxes that are used to run our office software, website, etc - I don't care how nice they make their products these days, I simply don't trust any MS box open to the net. Therefore, this leaves me with having to port forward port 80 from eth2 to the internal IP address of the web server.
My ruleset is as follows:
$WWW - ip address of the web server iptables -A FORWARD -d $WWW -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth2 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to $WWW
Running ip route shows that I have routing entries for all 3 networks, and I can ping, ssh, etc to any of the addresses without issue. OpenVPN connects across eth2 as well, and all 15 of my VPN tunnels work fine. However - and here's the kicker - if I delete the default route and replace it with the route for eth2, port forwarding works fine.
I have a linux server I'm intending to use as a firewall. The server has the following adapters
eth0 - Public IP (VLAN2) eth0:1 - Public IP2 (VLAN2) eth1 - 10.241.4.4 (VLAN4)
the Default gateway is my ISPs gateway. Additionally, I have the following route set: route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 gw 10.241.4.1
I have a server that exists on VLAN 208 at IP 10.241.209.67/21., its GW is 10.241.208.1 (first IP in /21 range)
as it is on the 10.0.0.0/8 network, traffic from the firewall is successfully routed from that server through my router to the FW and out to the Internet. The FW can ping, ssh, etc... the server and vice versa.
I want an iptables rule that will allow me to forward port 4401 on eth0:1 to 10.241.209.67:4401.
Is this possible since the IP is not on the same subnet as eth1, even though it is accessible?
I'm a bit better than a neophyte linux user. I have not made port forwards with it in the past without scripts to assist so I'm looking for not just "it is possible", but also the syntax of how to add it.
I'm trying to build a firewall with IPTables: INTERNET <--------> (eth0) FIREWALL (eth1) <------------->FTP_srvI set all rules DROP by default.My rules for forwarding packet to FTP server:
I have set up a master DNS server at 192.168.50.9 and a slave DNS at 192.168.50.6. Both servers are BIND9.Machines are for testing/experimenting, hence the IP addresses. Initially, the zone transfer was blocked by the firewall on the master, as the slave uses randomly selected non-privileged ports for zone-transfer query. So, as far as I understand, there are two possible approaches:
1. Allow connections based on source, which should be Code: -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -s 192.168.50.6 --sport 1024:65535 --dport 53 -j ACCEPT (and it works for me fine)
2. Allow ESTABLISHED and RELATED connections, which would be something like Code: -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT which was my initial idea but didn't work, but has inspired me to dig deeper into firewall configuration topics :).
Question: Does zone change notification message count for opening a dialog, or notification from master and slave zone update request are two absolutely separate actions? If the latter is true, that, of course, explains why option #2 didn't work.
iam using arno iptables can give me command to ip forwarding cause my web server behind my router. my ip web server 192.168.0.11 and my ip router on eth 1 192.168.0.1 and eth0 i use to dial up my modem and i use pppoe for that.
