I set up iptables but it is blocking my SSH set up. I did allow it by opening port 22 but it did not work. Here is my config:
Code:
iptables -F
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P INPUT DROP
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
### this should allow SSH traffic
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
How do you allow SSH through the iptables firewall?
i used the angry ip scan software and found alot of the public ip addresses on our network are accessable from outside when they are not suppose to, For eg printers/ pcs etc. to make a start on locking down the network i was wondering if anybody knew th iptables command to add a rule which blocked all incoming traffic to specific ip adresses on the network and to a range of ip addresses.
View 7 Replies View RelatedWhere I work we have a lan, it is almost 100% windows machines except for 2 CentOS machines in which some clients connect to, via VPN. (very small network, <50 ip's used)
I would like to know if there is a way to block access from that machines to others in the network. I'm already logging traffic (with IPTraff) to see if they're accessing other machines in the network others than the ones they should connect.
Is possible blocking web with content for adults with iptables?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI am setting up a iptables firewall on one of our servers, and I would like to block a range of addresses from getting into the system. I am using a script that does a BLACKIN and BLACKOUT methodology for specific addresses. One example is the following:
Code:
$IPTABLES -A BLACKIN -s 202.109.114.147 -j DROP
...
$IPTABLES -A BLACKOUT -d 202.109.114.117 -j DROP
What would be the correct syntax to use if I wanted to block an entire remote subnet from getting into the server?
I have a fiberoptic broadband 20MB synchronous pipe at my home. Over summer at my place of employment its pretty much dead for 3 months so when I'm not busy I play around on my home server. I have my 20mb pipe going directly into my wrt54gl, from there I have a wired connection going to my server (Centos 5.3 recently upgraded to 5.5 through updates.) It serves as a file server(Samba, SSH). My wrt54gl handles natting port 22 to my server. I have my wireless AP setup to hand out leases from .2-.20 and my server has a static of .100. Dyndns.org handles my name resolution via their free account method.
I have a Mac Pro, iMac, Macbook, and a Toshiba Laptop with 64bit 7 running off wireless along with our cell phones, and my XBOX 360 also is wired directly for the gaming speed. I use all of the computers around my home to access the samba shares via unc path for file sharing and or working on projects. I had originally planned to upgrade the wrt54gl with a cisco e3200 or an e3000 but unfortunately I've come to find out dyndns and the e lines of cisco wireless AP's dont work with dyndns and get banned. So I would have to install the daemon on my server and put it as a directly connected server to my WAN link and install a second ethernet card and pass traffic through my server for the rest of my home which I am not going to do.
All of the previous sentence because it would update dyndns with a 192.168.x.x address since its not directly connected. I use a combination of putty.exe and vnc viewer to tunnel 5900 through port 22 to my server. So from anywhere I am at I can access my screen securely and then rdp or vnc to the desktop of my local LAN computers. This allows me to only have port 22 open. I've been looking at my ssh logs and noticed I have been getting hit alot with ssh scans. I want to implement an iptables firewall on my linux machine just for the purpose of further securing port 22. I dont necessarily need natting on the iptables firewall but all I need is ssh in and out, web in, and samba out to local ip's only.
For SSH this is what I want. I want to allow SSH from any IP but if it tries to login more than 3 times in one minute I want to block that IP for a full minute before it can try 3 more attempts. I also would like log to a file but have been having issues getting that to work as well. That way when I review logs and I see that an ip tries three times and then waits a minute and tries three more, etc... I can permanently block that ip or range of ip's by adding it to the iptables script. Here is my current iptables script and it doesnt seem to be working for me. I have played with this and read for almost two weeks and still cannot get it to work correctly.
Code:
#!/bin/bash
# In order to use this iptables firewall script you must have iptables installed. You also must be using a 2.4.x series Kernel, with iptables suppport compiled into it, which is standard for most newer linux distributions.
# If you need help compiling iptables into your kernel, please see our kernel Compile/Upgrade Guide located at [URL]
# Once the script has been edited with all your relevant information (IP's Network Interfaces, etc..) simply make the script executable and run it as root.
# chmod 700 fw_rules.sh
# ./fw_rules.sh .....
# Our final trap. Everything on INPUT goes to the dropwall
# So we don't get silent drops.
$IPT -A INPUT -j dropwall
I am currently running Debian 6. I would like to know if there is a way and how i would go about blocking a certain IP range from connecting to my server within a certain port range. Say for example.
i want to block ip range 123.123.123.* from connecting to my server on the ports 33000 - 43000. But, i want to allow them to connect on any other port range, and i want to be able to allow connections from my server to the blocked ip range on those same ports. so, blocking incoming only on the above port range.
using iptables.
I am at a loss how to prevent Denial of Service attacks to port 25 and not block legitimate connections from 2 Barracuda 800(s) and block smart phones such as iPhones/Blackberrys/iPhones that use the server smtp.server.com for email.
Presently for port 25
RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT
The 2 Barracuda 800(s) make port 25 connections all the time, plus users with smart_phones have the incoming server type:
IMAP
pop.server.com
smtp.server.com
Is there a way to keep Denial of Service attacks from happening with iptables rules without causing blocking to the Barracuda(s) that make constant port 25 connections & smart phones that poll? I was thinking if I allowed the Barracuda(s) in these lines
-s (barracuda)24.xx.xx.xx -d (emailserver)24.00.xx.xx -p tcp -m tcp --dport 25 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
Where the source would be the Barracuda going to the email server. It would be allowed, then I am left with how to allow other connections like Smart_Phones that connect via Port 25. I am thinking if I put rules in place doing connection counts in a minute it would result in errors connecting to the server and people would start complaining. Plus any limiting may result in blocking real traffic. Then would I need to allow the ISP range in the above example to accept port 25, I am still left with how to drop a flood/denial of service attack.
I'm currently using a homemade Python script to parse script kiddie IP addresses from logfiles.To this point, I've simply been DROPping any requests from these IPs using iptables.I thought it might be fun to redirect their traffic back to them, but as I am not an expert at iptables, I was wondering if I should use FORWARD or PREROUTING.
View 7 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.
Is there a way to configure my interface to promisc mode and also make it not capture the "transmitted" packets. ?I mean, i want the interface in Promisc mode but only for inbound traffic.If there isnt any using ifconfig, can it be by configuring eth0 to promisc using ifconfig , and filtering outbound traffic from being captured using sockets or something ?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have a remote network that I manage consisting of a DLink DFL-210 firewall/router, and behind that a Dell server running openSUSE 11.2 and a collection of Windows XP/Vista/7 computers.
The Linux box is running OpenVPN as a server (that is how I connect to this network) and a client (it connects to a second server - running XP - at a different location).
The DLink router is the DHCP server and provides addresses on the 192.168.51.0/24 network. The OpenVPN server provides the 10.8.51.0/24 address range.
The remote network that the Linux box connects to is 192.168.54.0/24 via the OpenVPN network 10.8.54.0/24.
I have added routes to the DLink router to route all traffic to the 10.8.51.0/24 and 192.168.54.0/24 networks to the Linux box.
With SUSEFirewall turned off, after I have connected via OpenVPN from my remote computer I can ping all active 192.168.51.0/24 addresses. Other computers on the 192.168.51.0/24 network can ping computers on the 192.168.54.0/24 network. But if I turn on SUSEFirewall, neither of these work. However, I can ping 10.8.54.1 from any computer on the 192.168.51.0/24 network.
How can I set up SUSEFirewall to allow these networks to communicate with eachother?
I want to block the icmp packets(ping) from the other computer to my RHEL-4 what's the syntax I should use to do so in IPTABLES.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI want to block all the outgoing ssh form my machine, i.e my machine will not be able to ssh to any outside machine using iptables. The distro is RHEL, I added the following entry in the iptables but unfortunately it didnt worked, -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j DROP
View 13 Replies View RelatedFriends the following shall block a particular machine in the same network, what can be done if it is dynamic IP and from other network?
iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.0.0/24 -m mac --mac-source 00:50:8D:FD:E6:32 -j DROP
I have two asterisk servers each one behind a linux firewall/gw. Linux is Centos 5.4, kernel 2.6.18-164.el5, iptables v1.3.5. Routes on the fws are ok and when iptables is stoped the servers are see each other, all good. But when I run iptables script in any fw, one server (not always the same) goes unreachable. I verify this with asterisk -r, then show sip trunk, and status becomes UNREACHABLE.
Iptables scripts is generated by fwbuilder. The weird part is I put only one rule to de script and it looks like Source=any, Destination=any, Service=any, Interface=any, Direction (Inbound,Outbound)=any, Time=Any, Action=ACCEPT. So as you can see I tried something like "Do not do anything at all". But anyway I run the script in any fw and one server becomes UNREACHABLE. I think the script does something wrong after all or maybe I have some missconfiguration in my asterisk conf files. The point is I am not so expert in iptables or shell scripting so I can't see anything in the iptables script. I have look for some issues like iptables blocking because of ip_conntrack table full, or "dont fragment" bit set in kernel problem, but nothing seems to be the right problem at all.
When i was try to execute this command in my router device it will show error...
First execution:-
Second Execution:-
So I Need to block this kind of websites ...kindly tell me what i have to rectify & change..here i didnt execute this command...
I am running Ubuntu server 10.10 and trying to setup iptables rules in /etc/if-up.d/iptables
Quote:
root@host# cat /etc/network/if-up.d/iptables
#!/bin/sh -e
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
Problem is that iptables doesn't get updated and I don't see them when iptables -L is executed after reboot.
I've tried both the firewall interface that comes with Fedora and Firestarter, neither can configure as I want. So I think I'm going to have to do it by hand. In this laptop I have one 10/100 Nic and one wifi connection, at times either of them can be connected to the network. How can I configure IPtables so that any traffic is allowed out, nothing is allowed in (other than std stateful firewall replies), no icmp and that the fw logs any attempts to connect to the laptop?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI did some playing around changing up the configuration of my server and now cannot pass traffic through to port 22. I have since restored everything back to the way it was but am still not able to ssh into the server.
nmap only shows port 80 and 5222 open. Both ports that I want open. However I am unable to get 22 to pass.
iptables -nL shows
http://www.theprepared.com/images/tech/iptables_nL.PNG
netstat -an |grep 22 shows
http://www.theprepared.com/images/tech/netstat.PNG
I've tried clearing the routing table with the following which did no good.
ip route flush table main
Can somone point me in the right direction?
I do $ sudo iptables -A INPUT -p TCP -i eht0 --destination-port 80 -j ACCEPT
and then $ sudo ufw enable but I still get no internet traffic. What is wrong? Shouldn't opening port 80 to TCP allow the packets though my firewall?
As too my question, at this time I dont control the router/firewall an I would like to block a port thats used for guild wars on my workstation for a while. The reason for blocking is children have abused it an lost it.In this case I am trying to block outgoing traffic on port 6112. I have tried setting up a proxy server on the workstation, but the game seems to ignore it an jump on. Due to the environment, I enabled the workstation SuSEFirewall2 firewall an tried setting up "lo" as a internal an configure the firewall as a router, then disable 0/0 an configured for 0/0,tcp,443 an re route port 80 traffic to proxy.
When I had my own internet, I had a transparent proxy enforcing rules for access times. So setting up a proxy on each machine would not be a bad thing, even if it took some creative thinking. I am trying, but seem to be missing something.Ideally, I would like to setup a transparent proxy, as my kids have learned alot about system administration an know to check the proxy module. If all they have to do is un check "Use Proxy" an by pass a local proxy server, then I am kinda defeated. An applications such as firefox have a proxy setting they could set to none instead of system
I'm looking to use Linux (Ubuntu 9.10) as a network bridge between two subnets. I can configure iptables to permit all traffic on eth0 (subnet 1) to pass to eth1 (subnet 2) but before transmitting that traffic I want to perform further analysis. Is it possible within iptables or via a third-party product such a pyroman, to write a "hook" that then directs that traffic to another application installed on the same host?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI 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 need to set OUTPUT to DROP, and add the outgoing traffic one by one, but I couldn't do it. My current config is as follows:
Code:
*filter
:INPUT DROP [0:0]
:FORWARD DROP [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
:RH-Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0]
-A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT
-A FORWARD -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT
:RH-Firewall-1-OUTPUT - [0:0]
-A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-OUTPUT
#previously ESTABLISHED,RELATED comm is ok
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
#80 is ok from all
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
If I change OUTPUT to DROP in :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0], I don't get any response from a server running in that box. I am using RHEL 5.5. Now, asking Red Hat is not an option: I have the license but I don't have support license.
I am trying to configure iptables for only HTTP and HTTPS traffic. I start by blocking all traffic, which works, via:
Code:
iptables -F
iptables -P INPUT DROP
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
iptables -P OUTPUT DROP
I then try to allow HTTP and HTTPS on eth0 with these commands, which does not work:
Code:
iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
Code:
iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 443 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 443 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT After these commands I should be able to access the internet. Does anyone know why this is not working?
We host a web server in which we are hoping to implement some form of traffic redirection based on source IP address, and I am wondering whether the squid proxy built on iptables would be capable of managing this task? Essentially we are trying to redirect traffic from specific set of source IP ranges to a "Your IP has been restricted" type of page at a different IP/FQDN.
View 2 Replies View Relateda good IPTABLES protocol to reject all incoming ssh trafiic except for a single IP or IP range?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have a strange iptables issues. I have just built a new Debian install and starting adding some real basic rules (see below) the problem seems to be that the localhost itself can't get any returning traffic. That is, it seems to be allowed outgoing traffic but not the connected, returning traffic. Ordinarily allowing Established Connections would resolve this, see the rule below, but it hasn't. Why this doesn't work. Removing the last DROP in the INPUT chains obviously makes the traffic work!
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -p tcp --dport 22
iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -s x.x.x.x
iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -s x.x.x.x
iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -s x.x.x.x -p tcp --dport 80
iptables -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -s x.x.x.x -p tcp --dport 8080
iptables -I INPUT 1 -i lo -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -j DROP
I'm using Ubuntu server 9.10 with 2 NICS (Internet-router-eth0, eth1-LAN). I use iptables to generate rules for 20 computers, but when I execute the script, ALL TRAFFIC DROPS, including the server. What am I doing wrong?
Code:
#!/bin/sh
#eth0 192.168.0.50 - connected to Internet
#eth1 192.168.1.51 - connected to LAN
#192.168.1.52 - workstation1
#set default policies
iptables -P INPUT DROP
[Code]...
iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -s 192.168.1.52 -j ACCEPT. The reason I'm doing this is, I just want to open necessary ports in the server and restrict LAN usage.