I'm trying to use iptables in order to forward all the incoming packets for port 5555 to port 5556 on the same server (192.168.2.101).
I wrote the following commands:
iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -i any -p tcp --dport 5555 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.101:5556
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -m state --state NEW -d 192.168.2.101 --dport 5556 -j ACCEPT
I'm using a Debian servers, as router/firwall.. I've two ethernet interfaces into the server, one for wan and one for lan. The i use SNAT so my LAN clients can access the internet throgh the debian router. That is working... Now i want to be able to access servers on the LAN site from the WAN site, and i wanna use port address translation (PAT). I have a FTP server running on a lan server, so i'm trying to portward port 21.
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth1 -d (WANIP) --dport 21 -j DNAT --to 192.168.1.2:21
When people try to access my FTP from the WAN site, they are redirected to the local FTP server, and they are promted for crendentials, but when the credentials are typed, and the local ftp server should answer the wan request, the connections dies.
The wan clients are being promted for credentials, so they are redirected to the local lan server, but after that the connections dies, so i think there is some kind of nat problem, when the local lan server is trying to respond to the wan request..
Here i my iptables script:
#flush table
iptables -F
#input regler
[code]....
If I forward port 80 to port 3128 for squid with an iptable rule, does port 3128 have to be open on the firewall or is this all routed behind the firewall?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI've got a box with 2 interfaces, with IP1 = 192.168.100.1 and IP2 = 10.1.1.1 respectively on them. I've got an iptables rule that looks like:
Code:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.100.0/24 -d 10.0.0.0/8 -p udp -j SNAT --to-source 10.1.1.1 --random
If I get 2 consecutive packets from the same address and port from 192.168.100.0/24, they get SNAT-ed and come out of the same port on 10.1.1.1. If then I get another packet from the same address and port 10 minutes later, then it gets SNAT-ed, but comes out of a different port on 10.1.1.1. How can I set the time delay I would like iptables to remember its incoming address/port to outgoing port mappings?
I need to forward a port to use dtella. I'm using Fedora 10, using iptables for my firewall.
I'm currently trying to forward it from terminal with this command:
Code:
sudo iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -i eth0 -d [ip address] --dport 11823 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.2:80
this is what I get from iptables -L
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
[Code].....
Lets say i have two machines on public ips. If i get incoming traffic on machine #1 on port 55242 i would just like to forward it to machine #2 on port 35000.I would just like to use machine #1 same way as a dns server works. It just redirects the traffic and tells the client where to go.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI've got a box with 2 interfaces, with IP1 = 192.168.100.1 and IP2 = 10.1.1.1 respectively on them. I've got an iptables rule that looks like:
Code:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.100.0/24 -d 10.0.0.0/8 -p udp -j SNAT --to-source 10.1.1.1 --random
If I get 2 consecutive packets from the same address and port from 192.168.100.0/24, they get SNAT-ed and come out of the same port on 10.1.1.1. If then I get another packet from the same address and port 10 minutes later, then it gets SNAT-ed, but comes out of a different port on 10.1.1.1. My question is: how can I set the time delay I would like iptables to remember its incoming address/port to outgoing port mappings?
I`m running a rather simple iptables script, but no matter what port i try to forward it wont open. Here are the basics:
Code:
ipt="/usr/sbin/iptables"
$ipt -F
[code]...
I have a mail server on which I would like to block port 25 on my eth0 for everyone except our external spam filter. the problem is that I want our users to be able to connect via port 10025 which is forwarded to port 25, which then is blocked...
View 2 Replies View Relatedhow can i drop igmp port 0 packets with iptables rule? my log file is full of this router advertisement.
View 2 Replies View RelatedIs there any way to verify if packets being trafficked over a certain port are valid for the service you want to use this port for?
One obvious example that probably clarifies my question:
When I open port 443 (outgoing or incoming) for https/ssl traffic, I don't want this port to be used for say openvpn traffic.
Thus: when someone wants to surf to a website with https, it should be ok but if someone wants to connect to his home openvpn server over that same port, it should be blocked.
I want to do a simple port redirect, i.e. whatever comes trough whatever interface on port AAAA will get redirected to port BBBBI thought that iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --source 0/0 --destination 0/0 -p tcp --dport AAAA -j REDIRECT --to-ports BBBBhowever it doesn't work, e.g. nc -v -w2 -z localhost AAAA gives:
nc: connect to localhost port AAAA (tcp) failed: Connection refused
while
nc -v -w2 -z localhost BBBB
[code]....
I have a iptable as firewall, I want to open incoming of port 8080 so I use "# Allow forwarding of incoming Port 8080 traffic" but it didn't work? how can I open just incoming of port 8080?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI've a strange situation in my network: pcs gatewayed to another network, then a proxy, then a firewall.pcs --> router --> cloud --> router --> proxy --> switch <-- fw --> Internet(router, proxy and fw are alla connected by the switch)Some months ago the situation was: pcs --> router --> cloud --> router --> switch <-- fw --> Internet.There was a static route in the router that gatewayed the packets to the firewall, but that route has been deleted, and I cannot reinsert it because I've not access to the routers, so we have to use a proxy to go to Internet, and we have the configuration of all pcs (Windows XP) with the fields "proxy" filled.The proxy ha only one NIC gatewayed to the firewall, and Ubuntu and squid installed, but we have some problems:
1. we cannot use email, so how can we make port 110 and 25 packets pass?
2. squid seems to slow down, so can we uninstall it and route all the traffic directly to the firewall to speed up?
How can I drop or forward a incoming connection from a part of a host like *.alicedsl.de
For example:
The user is connection from *.alicedsl.de on port 12345
So how can I drop this connection or forward to google.com on port 80
Well I have been searching for more than a month now and I think I have read every single post related to this subject and finally decided to make a thread.
Now before I begin I am running Openvpn on my CentOS VPS. I have set static IP's for everyone.
Now what I am looking for is this lets say one of my clients wants port 60005 forwarded through my VPS to the internet what are the correct commands to run.
server-ip:60005 to loacl-ip:60005
Sever IP 24.xx.xx.xx
Client IP 192.168.1.2
I have a host and a client both running linux. Host has internet through eth2. Client needs to share that connection. The computers are connected directly using a crossover. I can ping from both fine. I figured I needed to port forward eth2 to eth0 to gain internet access in the client. How?
Code:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:18:a6:fd:a3
inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::226:18ff:fea6:fda3/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
[code]...
I can't port forward to ftp behind my firewall, I tried several attempts but none worked.
Can anyone help me solve this?
I am currently having problems with my server. Its being DDOSed. I have a vps with Centos 64bit. The attack I want to block is udp flood. I was trying to do something like this: iptables -I INPUT -p udp --dport 123 -m limit --limit 40/s -j DROP but instead of blocking certain hosts it blocks the whole port and during the attack its unreachable. How to limit packets per host or any other way to protect from udp flood.
View 11 Replies View RelatedI have just set up the transmission bittorrent client on my server (using the web interface), and am trying to get the port forwarding right. After noticing low download speeds (and rare uploading), I decided to check if a port needed to be forwarded.
I found many conflicting sites, mentioning both the ranges 6881-6999 and the port 51413 (as well as TCP and UDP versus just TCP). My current configuration is to forward TCP and UDP port 51413 to my server.
I have a server that I can only access via SSH (it's located far away) and I would like to secure it by blocking all ports except the ones that I need (which are HTTP and SSH). I still want to be able to make outgoing connections to enable software updates and other things.This is my iptables -L -n :
Code:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
DROP tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpts:1:21
DROP tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpts:23:79
DROP tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpts:81:65535
code....
In my opinion, this should block all incoming packets except the ones on port 80 and 22, but allow responses to outgoing connections. But a wget http://google.com does not work, it can't establish the connection.
Maybe this is not the best style for iptables rules, but I want to be absolutely sure to not accidently lock myself out from SSH, so I chose not to configure a "block-everything rule".
Does this configuration not enable incoming packets from connections initiated from inside?
iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport -j ACCEPT
iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport -j ACCEPT
and the rules are placed in iptables, i can see them when I do iptables -L. But when I do netstat -an | grep 161 I can see that port 161 (SNMP) is not listening. Why?
I am running a voip server on port 5060. I want to hide this to all the robots scanning the net permanently - I know this is not enough security - it is just to prevent them from wasting by bandwidth testing all usernames until fail2ban stops them !
I'd like to have port 5060 accepting requests only from 'trusted' hosts, while others (client with dynamic ip) use port 5065 - thus, port 5060 will only appear open for some trusted partners and the bots will skip to something else.
I have setup the iptables rules succesfully to accept only trusted hosts.
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 93.x.y.z -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 5060 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 5060 -j DROP
I've added a PREROUTING NAT rule that change the port from 5065 to 5060 for others - but then, this gets caught in the INPUT rule as port 5060 -A PREROUTING -p udp -m udp --dport 5065 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.1:5060
This works so well that the packets coming on port 5065 are translated to port 5060 and get caught in the DROP rule...
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)
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 445 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.2:445
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
[code]....
There is this server where in I want to use port redirection using iptables. For port redirection I have used nat table with PREROUTING chain and REDIRECT option. Like:
Code:
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport pop3 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8110
It just does not work. I have tried to redirect other ports as well but nothing works.
[code]....
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.
View 1 Replies View Relatedhow do i enable or open port in the iptables
View 14 Replies View RelatedI'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.
If we accept that my networks are as follows:
192.168.0.0/25 - eth0 net, gw .1
1.1.1.0/29 - eth1 net, gw .1, eth1 ip .2
2.2.2.0/30 - eth2 net, gw .1, eth2 ip .2
then ip route reveals the following:
2.2.2.0 via 2.2.2.1 dev eth2
2.2.2.0 dev eth2 scope link src 2.2.2.2
1.1.1.0 dev eth1 scope link src 1.1.1.2
[code]....
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.