I need the port 27015 to be open. I've opened it in iptables :
Quote:
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -i eth0 --dport 27015 -j
But when i try :
Quote:
netstat -nan
The port 27015 do not appear as "LISTEN".
I'm trying to open port 8080 on my application server. I've included it in my iptables; however I still cannot access through ssh nor putty and it doesn't show up when I netstat either.Here is my iptables-config:
-A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -i eth0 -s xxx.xx.x.0/24 -j ACCEPT
[code].....
I am getting the hang of IPTables.I've setup to open certain UDP ports but they simply refuse to show when I iptables -L.
iptables file:
$IPT -A INPUT -p udp --dport 13000 -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A INPUT -p udp --dport 13001 -j ACCEPT
[code]....
how do i enable or open port in the iptables
View 14 Replies View RelatedIf 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 have an application that uses port 8080 all the time. One time, for some reason, it was taken by I didn't know what.
View 2 Replies View Relatedwith netstat i found a port with idle state, i google the meaning of IDLE:Idle, opened but not bound.What do you mean by bound?
View 2 Replies View RelatedNetstat has always confused me. I ype netstat -pl and get this:
Code:
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name
tcp 0 0 localhost:ipp *:* LISTEN 1476/cupsd
tcp 0 0 localhost:postgresql *:* LISTEN 13816/postgres
tcp 0 0 *:44223 *:* LISTEN 1288/sshd
tcp6 0 0 localhost:ipp [::]:* LISTEN 1476/cupsd
tcp6 0 0 localhost:postgresql [::]:* LISTEN 13816/postgres
tcp6 0 0 [::]:44223 [::]:* LISTEN 1288/sshd
udp 0 0 *:bootpc *:* 1267/dhclient
I assume that *:* means that any foreign host can connect from any port, but then what does [::]:* mean? and localhost:ipp... what port is ipp? Shouldn't ports be numeric?
I've recently installed 10.10 server edition, and I must say it was a pleasant suprise, it's just the way I like it. I use it as a squeezebox-server. But I've run into a problem with the firewall. I did a portscan, which told me there are more ports open then I've told UFW to open. Among which port 25 and 119, when I telnet from another PC to those ports, the connection gets accepted, although there is no answer to any commands (as expected, there's no mail server running). Iptables print-outs also don't mention anything about the respective ports or a daemon that could be responsable, and the same applies to "ps -e" or "ps aux".
Iptables seems to be working, when I remove the rules to allow samba to work, I can't reach the shares, and when I insert them again I can reach the shares. "sudo ufw deny from any" as last rule doesn't change anything either (deny incoming is default (although I never issued the command "ufw status verbose" says it is) so it shouldn't, but ports 25 and 119 shouldn't be open either).
I am configuring an internal only IMAP server for archival emails. I am absolutely baffled why my connection is being refused. UFW is disabled and IPTABLES has a rule to allow all connections on 143 and 993. When I telnet this response is given:
Code:
telnet localhost 143
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Even nmap shows the port closed. Here is my iptables rule:
HTML Code:
-A ufw-user-input -p udp -m udp --dport 143 -j ACCEPT
Is it possible to open dyndns port at iptables?I have a remote server which is cenots 5.5 x86 and uses iptable rules. And my local pc is windows 7 x64 and have a dyndns address as mypc.dyndns.org.I want to connect local pc with mypc.dyndns.org to remote server with iptable rules as follows.Quote:
# Xmanager
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 6000:6010 -s mypc.dyndns.org -j ACCEPT
[code]...
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]....
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 RelatedI am running lmgrd on CentOS5, but it returns Failed to open the TCP port number in the license. The port is 27000, how can I open that port?
View 5 Replies View RelatedStrange issue here when trying to verify firewall on Server 8.04. No ftp service running at all on server, but both nmap and netcat report port 21 as being open, even though it isn't.I am 100% sure that port 21 is not actually accessible and iptables rules are fine. Trying to connect to the port fails, yet nmap and netcat seem to report a "false positive"?Have also checked on a number of other servers I'm running, and this "false positive" seems to apply to all of them.
View 1 Replies View Relatedhad some problems with setting up Linux on my virtual machine as I cannot connect with putty (connection gets refused) to it but now I guess I figured my problem out, just not the way how to solve it .If I do netstat -nap | grep :22 I get the following output:[[ see attachment ]]
Shouldn`t there be some kind of LAN IP instead of 0.0.0.0?Does anyone have a possible solution for that? Checked iptables and such, they are not causing it.
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 Relatediam 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.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am playing around with transparent proxies, The current way I am doing things is the program makes a request to a computer on port 80, I use
Code:
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --destination-port 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 1234 to redirect to my proxy that I am playing with. the proxy will send out a request to port 81 (as all outbound port 80 are being fed back in to the proxy) so I want to do something like
Code:
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --destination-port 81 -j DNAT --to-destination xxxx:80 The problem lies with the xxxx part. How do I change the destination port without changing changing the destination ip? Or am I doing this setup completely wrong,
I am fairly new to Ubuntu/Linux and I have somehow managed to get a server up and running. For the past few months I have been trying to get masquerading working.
I have 2 network cards
eth0=Internal Lan IP address 192.168.0.254
eth1=router External IP address 10.0.0.1
I want all my internal lan traffic to go through my linux box & only have port 80 & 3128 go through squid. So for all pop3/smtp action I want the linux machine to act like a router & for port 80 & 3128 I want it to go through squid.
I've been beating myself over the head with iptables and CANNOT get port forwarding to work. Here's my situation: Static LAN IP on eth0 Static internet IP on eth1 ip_forward is turned on by uncommenting in sysctl.conf Here's the output of iptables-save:
Code:
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Tue Mar 8 10:34:12 2011
*nat
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [2443:347058]
[Code]...
Edit: by the way, the intended purpose of this machine is to server as a gateway and firewall. MASQUERADE is working, for whatever that is worth. And the host behind the firewall that is serving up http is definitely working too. All that is not working is getting hosts on the internet talking to hosts behind the firewall.
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 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]....