I have the default to deny all. The only rule I have in there is:
Code:
To Action From
-- ------ ----
[code]....
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.
My ISP (Cox) is blocking port 80 and I would like to know if there is a way to open it again. I am to taking about 8080, 8000 or 81 I want to use 80 so I can host my website and every one can access it without the need to put [url]:[PORT] at the URL
View 2 Replies View RelatedSo first off, it probably seems this question has been asked thousands of times before. but I did do a search, mostly archived posts that ended up being something other than a true ip blocking of the port. [URL]..
So my port 80 is truly blocked. Ive tried setting up the port forwarding on my router, Ive tried manually allowing all traffic on port 80 through ip tables. Ive even dabbled with setting up something like openDNS to see So far nothing, Im only available on my local network.
There has to be some way to do a redirect though. even something as simple as an htaccess file redirecting [URL].. xxxx (the space is there to avoid my url being interrupted by a smiley
I have Ubuntu Server (x64) installed on my box with Apache2 and Squid. For awahile port 80 (http) was fine, I could update packages and use wget. Then one random day port 80 became blocked for incoming traffic. I couldn't use apt-get and had to change to an ftp mirror to update. Also wget is not working.
View 3 Replies View RelatedIn order to connect to the internet when i am at work i have to use a proxy server; the problem is that this proxy also blocks port xxxxx which is used by a internet radio station. Is there any way to be able to listen to that radio station?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI'm having an issue with ufw and Synergy. I'm trying to run my Xubuntu 10.10 desktop as a server, and my Xubuntu 10.10 laptop as a client. I can do this just fine as long as I either: Have ufw enabled on my client but disabled on my server Have ufw disabled on both my client and my server I have no custom rules added to iptables on my client. On my server, however, I have tried the following rules:
$ ufw allow from 192.168.0.0/24 to any port 24800 $ ufw allow from 192.168.0.0/24
Neither of these configurations works. ufw on my server seems to block my client's requests regardless of having port 24800 fully open from any local connection, or just flat-out fully allowing any incoming local connection. I'm not sure why ufw seems to be ignoring the rules I'm creating, but as it stands right now, the only way I can connect the two is if I have ufw on my server disabled. And I have tried to ping the two machines; each machine can ping the other, even if ufw is running on both.
And I can ping the router, as well, from both machines. Any ideas on where to go from here to troubleshoot? I should probably also add that I am using the same configuration file that I do on vanilla Ubuntu (with updated host names, of course), and I have no problems in Ubuntu. This seems to be specific to ufw and my Xubuntu desktop. I can paste the code for my server's configuration file, if desired.
I have cloned an embedded system that runs Opensuse 11 x86 using dd. The embedded system uses a simple serial device, by writing to the relevant device file (/dev/ttyS2, usually). Curiously, when I write to the same serial device on the newly cloned system (which, incidentally, has almost identical hardware), thusly:
echo hello > /dev/ttyS2 the command blocks for up to a minute, before finally returning without making the hardware do anything. I can boot into Opensuse's rescue system on the clone and successfully do exactly the same thing, as I can when I boot the original's "identical" operating system. Why might this problem occur? What can I do about it?
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 can see what Firestarter is blocking in the Firestarter/Events tab, but after reading all the man pages of UFW, I still don't know how to check what the UFW is blocking.
View 9 Replies View RelatedAfter reading a lot about networking and security I decided to check the security of my own ubuntu box. So I went installing Nmap and discovered that port 139 was "open". Since I 'd read how to use ufw I created a deny rule for port 139. After a second scan with Nmap it still said that port 139 was open as shown below.
[Code]...
im having a bit of a problem with Firestarter, i have Transmission opened and i am downloading a movie but when i check Firestarter i see hundreds and hundreds of Ip's that are blocked, and like 10ip's every second that get blocked.
[Code].....
I might be misunderstanding the log but it looks like UFW is blocking connections. I want to allow all incoming and outgoing. I guess what I'm saying is that the servers on my computer will open ports but all other ports should respond with closed just like a default Ubuntu install. Trying to use UFW to monitor connections without really doing any firewalling.
Code:
Aug 1 07:14:07 universal-mechanism kernel: [311111.963762] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:1f:c6:8a:e9:66:00:01:5c:32:f4:c1:08:00 SRC=72.21.203.146 DST=174.44.178.56 LEN=40 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=233 ID=51984 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=54466 WINDOW=8201 RES=0x00 RST URGP=0
sudo ssh -L 750:192.168.123.103:873 username@192.168.123.103It does exactly what it's supposed to do, but how do i edit / remove this rule?Is there some config file where i can alter the forwarding? How does it get stored?Im using Ubuntu 10.10Server Edition (allthough i recon it would be pretty much the same across all versions
View 5 Replies View RelatedI've been using Deny Hosts for a couple of years now without trouble. My router forwards SSH calls to host tock on my LAN. My router's internet hostname is michigan. I keep an svn repository on tock and access it through michigan. In this way I can update my repository when I'm at home or away.Just today, however, whenever I try any ssh to michigan, I get a closed connection and find michigan in my hosts.deny file. I delete it, make a successful connection, but then on my next attempt - there I am in the hosts.deny file again.
I've worked around it by putting michigan into my hosts.allow file, but I would really like to know what's going on. I've configured Hosts Deny to lock out IPs after three failed attempts, but it is locking out michigan after one successful connection.
Is 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.
Mobloquer starts up at boot and before I've even opened firefox or transmission or anything, mobloquer shows that is has started blocking several outgoing connections as well as ton of incoming connections. I was wondering if the outgoing connections is normal and what's a normal amount of network activity to show up in system monitor when I'm not actively using the internet.
View 2 Replies View RelatedIs possible blocking web with content for adults with iptables?
View 3 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.
When I turn on my SeLinux to enforcing mode on my Red Hat system ssh stops working and my http server stops responding.
I went into the SeLinux GUI and enabled things in there but still it wont work.
Any thoughts on what to check?
permissive mode and disabled they work
I read several articles that say it should not be affect by SeLinux and the setting look correct but the only thing I do is turn on SeLinux and ssh /httpd stop working
ps -eZ | grep sshd
system_u:system_r:unconfined_t:SystemLow-SystemHigh 432 ? 00:00:00 sshd
system_u:system_r:unconfined_t:SystemLow-SystemHigh 2426 ? 00:00:00 sshd
[root@goxsa1340 ~]# ps -eZ | grep httpd
user_u:system_r:httpd_t 3044 ? 00:00:00 httpd
[Code].....
I'll explain this in one sentence: Is it possible to program a port-binding shellcode in which people across the Internet can connect to, without being thwarted by the router blocking their data because the port its bound to doesn't allow port-forwarding
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am running Fedora 11 and every time i plug in my iPod it tells me... SELinux is preventing mkdir (podsleuth_t) "read" security_t ... I have no idea on how to create a policy module to allow access.
View 2 Replies View RelatedIn fedora 12 how can i configure the system such that a particular user can browse only selected web sites.
View 9 Replies View RelatedI want to ask about securing the FTP connection... I have one server that Installed with Redhat Linux Fedora 6.
And now, i want to securing the FTP access, so only the selected IP will be allowed to connect. Do anyone know how to do this?
Another thing is, my server using Webmin 1.3 to manage the server and there not installed / not configured yet with Frox FTP, ProFTPD Server, WU-FTP Server... even there is such thing in my Webmin...
Can i make use one of the three FTP i mention above, and if yes, will it be affecting the current FTP access?
I'm assuming that the following should block the complete 178.123.xxx.xxx address range.
Code:
iptables -I INPUT -s 178.123.0.0/24 -j DROP
Then I believe that I need to save this change.
Code:
service iptables save
iptables: Saving firewall rules to /etc/sysconfig/iptables:[ OK ]
However, I'm not so sure that it is actually working based on the fact that there continues to be access to my wiki from that address range. The following is after I made the firewall change.
Quote:
178.123.177.61 - - [31/Dec/2010:04:24:40 -0500] "GET /mywiki/Opera%20Web%20Browser?action=edit&editor=text HTTP/1.1" 200 6346 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)"
code....
Let me state that I'm new at this iptables thing. I did some reading and decided that I need to make the above change to the firewall but it doesn't seem to make a difference.
since I upgraded to F15 I noticed that "su -l" is very slow, it takes about 20sec before it gives the prompt. I traced it down to a problem with "xauth" as su asks for the authorization for the display running "xauth nlist :0" which times out with an error. Actually, the command "xauth nlist :0" by itself gives:
xauth: timeout in locking authority file /home/user/.kde/tmp-host.domain/xauth-200-_0
If I put SELinux in permissive mode both command work without problem so I suppose SEL is the problem. I checked the permissions and settings of the file which is "unconfined_u:object_r:config_home_t:s0" but I have no idea if this is the right value, running "restorecon" on the file, directory or the whole /home/user didn't change anything.
I would like to COMPLETELY block a specific IP address using iptables. I found this one:
Code:
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
Will this work? How do I undo the changes later?
I 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 want to block some ips permanently ie. even I as the root user cannot unblock these ips without having to format the whole system.
So i thought if some blocking software provided passwords for editing rules and I put a 'junk' password there and so that I can't delete the rules without the 'junk' password which I don't know.
So I examined iptables and I saw that it is a kernel module so there is no use of that since I can probably throw it away.
But the basic question is to block ips and gulp the key.
