Search Results

Search found 152 results on 7 pages for 'masquerade'.

Page 6/7 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • L2TP iptables port forward

    - by The_cobra666
    Hi all, I'm setting up port forwarding for an L2TP VPN connection to the local Windows 2003 VPN server. The router is a simpel Debian machine with iptables. The VPN server works perfect. But I cannot log in from the WAN. I'm missing something. The VPN server is using a pre-shared key (L2TP) and give's out an IP in the range: 192.168.3.0. Local network range is 192.168.2.0/24 I added the route: with route add -net 192.168.3.0 netmask 255.255.255.240 gw 192.168.2.13 (the vpn server) iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 1701 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.13 iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 1701 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 500 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.13 iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 500 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 4500 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.13 iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 4500 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p 50 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.13 iptables -A FORWARD -p 50 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p 51 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.13 iptables -A FORWARD -p 51 -j ACCEPT The whole iptables script is (without the line's from above): echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies #Flush table's iptables -F INPUT iptables -F OUTPUT iptables -F FORWARD iptables -t nat -F #Drop traffic iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT #verkeer naar buiten toe laten en nat aanzetten iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE #RDP forward voor windows servers iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 3389 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.10:3389 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 3389 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 3340 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.12:3340 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 3340 -j ACCEPT #toestaan SSH verkeer iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 22 -i eth0 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.2.1 iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT #toestaan verkeer loopback iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT #toestaan lokaal netwerk iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -j ACCEPT #accepteren established traffic iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 --match state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT #droppen ICMP boodschappen iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -i eth0 -m limit --limit 10/minute -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -i eth0 -j REJECT ifconfig eth1 192.168.2.1/24 ifconfig eth0 XXXXXXXXXXXXX/30 ifconfig eth0 up ifconfig eth1 up route add default gw XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX route add -net 192.168.3.0 netmask 255.255.255.240 gw 192.168.2.13

    Read the article

  • Virtual Network Interface and NAT disables localhost access for MySQL and Apache

    - by Interarticle
    I'm running an Ubuntu Server 12.04, and recently I configured it to do NAT for my laptop. Since the server has only one NIC, I followed instructions online to create a virtual network device (eth0:0) that has a LAN IP address, then further configured iptables and UFW to allow internet sharing. However, just a few days ago, I discovered that one of the PHP pages hosted on the server failed for no apparent reason. A little digging revealed that the MySQL server started refusing connections from localhost. The same happened with a page (PhpMyAdmin) that was configured to be accessible only from localhost (in Apache2). The error, as shown by $mysql --protocol=tcp -u root -p looks like ERROR 1130 (HY000): Host '<host name of eth0>' is not allowed to connect to this MySQL server However, the funny thing is, I configured the mysql server to allow root access from localhost (only). Moreover, the mysql server listens only on 127.0.0.1:3306, as shown by: sudo netstat -npa | head Active Internet connections (servers and established) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1029/mysqld which means that the connection could have only come from 127.0.0.1 (Note that MySQL is working because I can still connect to it via unix domain sockets) In effect, it seems that all tcp connections originating from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 appear to any local daemon to come from the eth0 IP address. Indeed, apache2 allowed me to access PhpMyAdmin after I added allow <eth0 IP address>. The following are my network configurations (redacted): /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost 211.x.x.x <host name of eth0> <server name> #IPv6 Defaults follows .... /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 211.x.x.x netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 211.x.x.x dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed dns-search xxxxxxx.com hwaddress ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 192.168.57.254 netmask 255.255.254.0 broadcast 192.168.57.255 network 192.168.57.0 /etc/ufw/sysctl.conf: #Uncommented the following lines net/ipv4/ip_forward=1 net/ipv6/conf/default/forwarding=1 /etc/default/ufw: DEFAULT_FORWARD_POLICY="ACCEPT" #Changed DROP to ACCEPT /etc/init/internet-sharing.conf (upstart script I wrote), section pre-start script: iptables -A FORWARD -o eth0 -i eth0:0 -s 192.168.57.22 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -j MASQUERADE Note again that my problem here is that programs cannot access localhost tcp services, from the server itself, and that access is blocked because the services have access control allowing only 127.0.0.1. I have no problem connecting (as in TCP connections) to services via tcp, even if the services listen only on 127.0.0.1. I do NOT want to connect to the services from another computer.

    Read the article

  • Gateway on a virtual network interface used by LXC guests

    - by linkdd
    I'm currently having some problems with configuring a gateway for a virtual network interface. Here is what I've done : I created a virtual network interface : # brctl addbr lxc0 # brctl setfd lxc0 0 # ifconfig lxc0 192.168.0.1 promisc up # route add -net default gw 192.168.0.1 lxc0 The output of ifconfig gave me what I wanted : lxc0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 22:4f:e4:40:89:bb inet adr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Masque:255.255.255.0 adr inet6: fe80::88cf:d4ff:fe47:3b6b/64 Scope:Lien UP BROADCAST RUNNING PROMISC MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:623 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:7412 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 lg file transmission:0 RX bytes:50329 (49.1 KiB) TX bytes:335738 (327.8 KiB) I configured dnsmasq to provide a DNS server (using the default : 192.168.1.1) and a DHCP server. Then, my LXC guest is configured like this : lxc.network.type=veth lxc.network.link=lxc0 lxc.network.flags=up Every thing is working perfectly, my containers have an IP (192.168.0.57 and 192.168.0.98). I can ping the host and the containers from the containers and from the host : (host)# ping -c 3 192.168.0.114 PING 192.168.0.114 (192.168.0.114) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.0.114: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.044 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.114: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.038 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.114: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.043 ms --- 192.168.0.114 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.038/0.041/0.044/0.007 ms (guest)# ping -c 3 192.168.0.1 PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.048 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms --- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1999ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.042/0.044/0.048/0.003 ms Now, it's time to configure the host as a gateway for the network 192.168.0.0/24 : #!/bin/sh # Clear rules iptables -F iptables -t nat -F iptables -t mangle -F iptables -X iptables -A FORWARD -i lxc0 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o lxc0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward The final test failed completely, ping the outside : (guest)# ping -c 3 google.fr PING google.fr (173.194.67.94) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 Redirect Host(New nexthop: wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94)) From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable --- google.fr ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 2017ms Did I missed something ?

    Read the article

  • Open ports broken from internal network

    - by ksvi
    Quick summary: Forwarded port works from the outside world, but from the internal network using the external IP the connection is refused. This is a simplified situation to make the explanation easier: I have a computer that is running a service on port 12345. This computer has an internal IP 192.168.1.100 and is connected directly to a modem/router which has internal IP 192.168.1.1 and external (public, static) IP 1.2.3.4. (The router is TP-LINK TD-w8960N) I have set up port forwarding (virtual server) at port 12345 to go to port 12345 at 192.168.1.100. If I run telnet 192.168.1.100 12345 from the same computer everything works. But running telnet 1.2.3.4 12345 says connection refused. If I do this on another computer (on the same internal network, connected to the router) the same thing happens. This would seem like the port forwarding is not working. However... If I run a online port checking service on my external IP and the service port it says the port is open and I can see the remote server connecting and immediately closing connection. And using another computer that is connected to the internet using a mobile connection I can also use telnet 1.2.3.4 12345 and I get a working connection. So the port forwarding seems to be working, however using external IP from the internal network doesn't. I have no idea what can be causing this, since another setup very much like this (different router) works for me. I can access a service running on a server from inside the network both through the internal and external IP. Note: I know I could just use the internal IP inside of the network to access this service. But if I have a laptop that must be able to do this both from inside and outside it would be annoying to constantly switch between 1.2.3.4 and 192.168.1.100 in the software configuration. Router output: > iptables -t nat -L -n Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 224.0.0.0/3 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:25 to:192.168.1.101 DNAT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:25 to:192.168.1.101 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:110 to:192.168.1.101 DNAT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:12345 to:192.168.1.102 DNAT udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.1 udp dpt:53 to:217.118.96.203 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination MASQUERADE all -- 192.168.1.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination

    Read the article

  • LVS Configuration issue (Using piranha Tool)

    - by PravinG
    I have configured LVS on cent os using piranha tool .I am using vip of internal n/w as gateway for real server we have two NIC one having exteranl Ip and other for internal n/w which is on 192.168.3.0/24 network. But I am not able to connect from client it shows connection refused error . Please suggest iptables rules for private n public n/w to communicate. May be I am missing this . Iptables rules that we have added are : iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -s 192.168.3.0/24 --sport 5000 -j MASQUERADE this is my ipconfig: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:E8:F6:74:DA inet addr:122.166.233.133 Bcast:122.166.233.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::200:e8ff:fef6:74da/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:94433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:130966 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:9469972 (9.0 MiB) TX bytes:19929308 (19.0 MiB) Interrupt:16 Base address:0x2000 eth0:1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:E8:F6:74:DA inet addr:122.166.233.136 Bcast:122.166.233.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:16 Base address:0x2000 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:20:14:F9:2D inet addr:192.168.3.1 Bcast:192.168.3.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:20ff:fe14:f92d/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:123718 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:148856 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:18738556 (17.8 MiB) TX bytes:11697153 (11.1 MiB) Interrupt:17 Memory:60000400-600004ff eth1:1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:20:14:F9:2D inet addr:192.168.3.10 Bcast:192.168.3.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:17 Memory:60000400-600004ff eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:76:6E:D1:D2 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:21 Base address:0xa500 and ipvsadm -ln command [root@abts-kk-static-133 ~]# ipvsadm -ln IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096) Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn TCP 122.166.233.136:5000 wlc TCP 122.166.233.136:5004 wlc lvs server routing table Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 122.166.233.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1003 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1004 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 122.166.233.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 real 1 real 2 we have configured various ports from 5000:5008 . Do we need to this iptables for all ports? Suggest me how should I solve this issue.

    Read the article

  • LXC container can only access host via bridge

    - by vitaut
    I have an LXC container with i686 Ubuntu 12.04 running on a x86_64 Ubuntu 12.04 host. I've set up a bridge using instructions here. However the ping from the container only goes through to the host and not to other machines on the local network. Similarly only the host and not the other machines see the container OS. The host's /etc/network/interfaces file looks as follows: auto lo iface lo inet loopback iface eth0 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet dhcp bridge_ports eth0 bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 The container's /etc/network/interfaces file looks as follows: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp And here's the relevant part of the container's config: lxc.network.type=veth lxc.network.link=br0 lxc.network.flags=up Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Additional info: The output of iptables-save on host: $ sudo iptables-save # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [6854:721708] :FORWARD ACCEPT [4067:538895] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [4967:522405] COMMIT # Completed on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [82235:21547307] :INPUT ACCEPT [16:1070] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9386:583359] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [14693:1291952] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.3.0/24 ! -d 10.0.3.0/24 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 The output of brctl show on host: $ brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0 8000.080027409684 no eth0 vethBkwWyV The output of ifconfig br0 on host: $ ifconfig br0 br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 08:00:27:40:96:84 inet addr:192.168.1.11 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe40:9684/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:232863 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:59518 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:34437354 (34.4 MB) TX bytes:198492871 (198.4 MB) The output of ifconfig eth0 on host: $ ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 08:00:27:40:96:84 inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe40:9684/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:299419 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:203569 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:59077446 (59.0 MB) TX bytes:372056540 (372.0 MB) The output of ifconfig eth0 on container: $ ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:3e:74:08:2b inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::216:3eff:fe74:82b/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:81 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:113 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:8506 (8.5 KB) TX bytes:9021 (9.0 KB)

    Read the article

  • debian gateway using iptables

    - by meijuh
    I am having problems setting up a debian gateway server. My goal: Having eth1 the WAN interface. Having eth0 the LAN interface. Allow both ports 22 (SSH) and 80 (HTTP) accessed from the outside world on the gateway (SSH and HTTP run on this server). What I did was the following: Create a file /etc/iptables.rules with contents: /etc/iptables.rules: *nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT *filter -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -j DROP COMMIT edit /etc/network/interfaces as follows: /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback pre-up iptables-restore < /etc/iptables.rules auto eth0 allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp #auto eth1 #allow-hotplug eth1 #iface eth1 inet dhcp allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 217.119.224.51 netmask 255.255.255.248 gateway 217.119.224.49 dns-nameservers 217.119.226.67 217.119.226.68 Uncomment the rule net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf to allow packet forwarding. The static settings for eth1 such as the ip address I got from my router (which I want to replace); I simply copied these. I have a (windows) DNS + DHCP server on ip address 10.180.1.10, which assigns ip address 10.180.1.44 to eth0. What this server does is not really interesting it only maps domain names on our local network and assigns one static ip to the gateway. What works: on the gateway itself I can ping 8.8.8.8 and google.nl. So that is okey. What does not work: (1) Every machine connected to eth0 (indirectly via a switch) can not ping an ip or a domain. So I guess the gateway can not be found. (2) Also when I configure my linux machine (a laptop) to use a static ip 10.180.1.41, a mask and a gateway (10.180.1.44) I can not ping an ip or domain either. This means that maybe my iptables is incorrect of not loaded correctly. Or I maybe have to configure my DNS/DHCP on my windows machine. I have not reset the windows machine net, restart the DNS/DHCP services, should I do this? I did not install dnsmasq as desribed here: http://blog.noviantech.com/2010/12/22/debian-router-gateway-in-15-minutes/. I don't think this is necessary?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 11.10 firewall/gateway - no client internet access

    - by Siriss
    I have read many other posts but cannot figure this out. eth0 is my external connected to a Comcast modem. The server has internet access with no issues. eth1 is internal and running DHCP for the clients. I have DHCP working just fine, all my clients can get an IP and ping the server but they cannot access the internet. I am using ISC-DHCP-SERVER and have set /etc/default/isc-dhcp-server to INTERFACE="eht1" Here is my dhcpd.conf file located in /etc/dhcp/dhcpd.conf ddns-update-style interim; ignore client-updates; subnet 10.0.10.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 { range 10.0.10.10 10.0.10.200; option routers 10.0.10.2; option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0; option domain-name-servers 208.67.222.222, 208.67.220.220; #OpenDNS # option domain-name "example.com"; default-lease-time 21600; max-lease-time 43200; authoritative; } I have made the *net.ipv4.ip_forward=1* change in /etc/sysctl.conf here is my interfaces file: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp iface eth1 inet static address 10.0.10.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.0.10.0 auto eth1 And finally- here is my iptables.conf file: # Firewall configuration written by system-config-firewall # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.10.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE #-A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 59668 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.10.2:59668 COMMIT *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m udp -p udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -s 10.0.10.0/24 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -d 10.0.10.0/24 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -i eth0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i lo -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -j ACCEPT #-A FORWARD -i eth0 -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d 10.0.10.2 --dport 59668 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT I am completely stuck. I cannot figure out why the clients cannot access the internet. Am I missing a service? Is a service not running? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I tried to be as thorough as possible but please let me know if I have missed something. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Is this iptables NAT exploitable from the external side?

    - by Karma Fusebox
    Could you please have a short look on this simple iptables/NAT-Setup, I believe it has a fairly serious security issue (due to being too simple). On this network there is one internet-connected machine (running Debian Squeeze/2.6.32-5 with iptables 1.4.8) acting as NAT/Gateway for the handful of clients in 192.168/24. The machine has two NICs: eth0: internet-faced eth1: LAN-faced, 192.168.0.1, the default GW for 192.168/24 Routing table is two-NICs-default without manual changes: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 (externalNet) 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 (externalGW) 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 The NAT is then enabled only and merely by these actions, there are no more iptables rules: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # (all iptables policies are ACCEPT) This does the job, but I miss several things here which I believe could be a security issue: there is no restriction about allowed source interfaces or source networks at all there is no firewalling part such as: (set policies to DROP) /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT And thus, the questions of my sleepless nights are: Is this NAT-service available to anyone in the world who sets this machine as his default gateway? I'd say yes it is, because there is nothing indicating that an incoming external connection (via eth0) should be handled any different than an incoming internal connection (via eth1) as long as the output-interface is eth0 - and routing-wise that holds true for both external und internal clients that want to access the internet. So if I am right, anyone could use this machine as open proxy by having his packets NATted here. So please tell me if that's right or why it is not. As a "hotfix" I have added a "-s 192.168.0.0/24" option to the NAT-starting command. I would like to know if not using this option was indeed a security issue or just irrelevant thanks to some mechanism I am not aware of. As the policies are all ACCEPT, there is currently no restriction on forwarding eth1 to eth0 (internal to external). But what are the effective implications of currently NOT having the restriction that only RELATED and ESTABLISHED states are forwarded from eth0 to eth1 (external to internal)? In other words, should I rather change the policies to DROP and apply the two "firewalling" rules I mentioned above or is the lack of them not affecting security? Thanks for clarification!

    Read the article

  • VPC SSH port forward into private subnet

    - by CP510
    Ok, so I've been racking my brain for DAYS on this dilema. I have a VPC setup with a public subnet, and a private subnet. The NAT is in place of course. I can connect from SSH into a instance in the public subnet, as well as the NAT. I can even ssh connect to the private instance from the public instance. I changed the SSHD configuration on the private instance to accept both port 22 and an arbitrary port number 1300. That works fine. But I need to set it up so that I can connect to the private instance directly using the 1300 port number, ie. ssh -i keyfile.pem [email protected] -p 1300 and 1.2.3.4 should route it to the internal server 10.10.10.10. Now I heard iptables is the job for this, so I went ahead and researched and played around with some routing with that. These are the rules I have setup on the public instance (not the NAT). I didn't want to use the NAT for this since AWS apperantly pre-configures the NAT instances when you set them up and I heard using iptables can mess that up. *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [129:12186] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [84:10472] -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 1300 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d 10.10.10.10/32 -p tcp -m limit --limit 5/min -j LOG --log-prefix "SSH Dropped: " -A FORWARD -d 10.10.10.10/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1300 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT COMMIT # Completed on Wed Apr 17 04:19:29 2013 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Wed Apr 17 04:19:29 2013 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2:104] :INPUT ACCEPT [2:104] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [6:681] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [7:745] -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1300 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.10.10.10:1300 -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1300 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT So when I try this from home. It just times out. No connection refused messages or anything. And I can't seem to find any log messages about dropped packets. My security groups and ACL settings allow communications on these ports in both directions in both subnets and on the NAT. I'm at a loss. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Remote access to internal machine (ssh port-forwarding)

    - by MacUsers
    I have a server (serv05) at work with a public ip, hosting two KVM guests - vtest1 & vtest2 - in two different private network - 192.168.122.0 & 192.168.100.0 - respectively, this way: [root@serv05 ~]# ip -o addr show | grep -w inet 1: lo inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0 inet xxx.xxx.xx.197/24 brd xxx.xxx.xx.255 scope global eth0 4: virbr1 inet 192.168.100.1/24 brd 192.168.100.255 scope global virbr1 6: virbr0 inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0 # [root@serv05 ~]# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr1 xxx.xxx.xx.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 xxx.xxx.xx.62 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 I've also setup IP FORWARDing and Masquerading this way: iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface virbr0 -j ACCEPT All works up to this point. If I want to remote access vtest1 (or vtest2) first I ssh to serv05 and then from there ssh to vtest1. Is there a way to setup a port forwarding so that vtest1 can be accessed directly from the outside world? This is what I probably need to setup: external_ip (tcp port 4444) -> DNAT -> 192.168.122.50 (tcp port 22) I know it's easily do'able using a SOHO router but can't figure out how can I do that on a Linux box. Any help form you guys?? Cheers!! Update: 1 Now I've made ssh to listen to both of the ports: [root@serv05 ssh]# netstat -tulpn | grep ssh tcp 0 0 xxx.xxx.xx.197:22 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 5092/sshd tcp 0 0 xxx.xxx.xx.197:4444 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 5092/sshd and port 4444 is allowed in the iptables rules: [root@serv05 sysconfig]# grep 4444 iptables -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 4444 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.122.50:22 -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 4444 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 4444 -j ACCEPT But I'm getting connection refused: maci:~ santa$ telnet serv05 4444 Trying xxx.xxx.xx.197... telnet: connect to address xxx.xxx.xx.197: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host Any idea what's I'm still missing? Cheers!!

    Read the article

  • how can I give openvpn clients access to a dns server (bind9) that is located on the same machine as the openvpn server

    - by lacrosse1991
    I currently have a debian server that is running an openvpn server. I also have a dns server (bind9) that I would like give allow access to by the connected openvpn clients, but I am unsure as of how to do this, I already known how to send dns options to the clients using push "dhcp-option DNS x.x.x.x" but I am just unsure how give the clients access to the dns server that is located on the same machine as the vpn server, so if anyone could point me in the right direction I would really appreciate it. Also in case this would have anything to do with adding rules to iptables, this is my current configuration for iptables # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.14 on Thu Oct 18 22:05:33 2012 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [3831842:462225238] :INPUT ACCEPT [3820049:461550908] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [1885011:139487044] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [1883834:139415168] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Thu Oct 18 22:05:33 2012 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.14 on Thu Oct 18 22:05:33 2012 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [45799:10669929] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [45747:10335026] :fail2ban-apache - [0:0] :fail2ban-apache-myadmin - [0:0] :fail2ban-apache-noscript - [0:0] :fail2ban-ssh - [0:0] :fail2ban-ssh-ddos - [0:0] :fail2ban-webserver-w00tw00t - [0:0] -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -j fail2ban-apache-myadmin -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -j fail2ban-webserver-w00tw00t -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -j fail2ban-apache-noscript -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -j fail2ban-apache -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 22 -j fail2ban-ssh-ddos -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 22 -j fail2ban-ssh -A INPUT -i tun+ -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A fail2ban-apache -j RETURN -A fail2ban-apache-myadmin -s 211.154.213.122/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-apache-myadmin -s 201.170.229.96/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-apache-myadmin -j RETURN -A fail2ban-apache-noscript -j RETURN -A fail2ban-ssh -s 76.9.59.66/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-ssh -s 64.13.220.73/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-ssh -s 203.69.139.179/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-ssh -s 173.10.11.146/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-ssh -j RETURN -A fail2ban-ssh-ddos -j RETURN -A fail2ban-webserver-w00tw00t -s 217.70.51.154/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-webserver-w00tw00t -s 86.35.242.58/32 -j DROP -A fail2ban-webserver-w00tw00t -j RETURN COMMIT # Completed on Thu Oct 18 22:05:33 2012 also here is my openvpn server configuration port 1194 proto udp dev tun ca ca.crt cert server.crt key server.key dh dh1024.pem server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt keepalive 10 120 comp-lzo user nobody group users persist-key persist-tun status /var/log/openvpn/openvpn-status.log verb 3 push "redirect-gateway def1" push "dhcp-option DNS 213.133.98.98" push "dhcp-option DNS 213.133.99.99" push "dhcp-option DNS 213.133.100.100" client-to-client

    Read the article

  • Configure server on network to analyze traffic

    - by Strajan Sebastian
    I have the following network: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rapkH.jpg I want to send all the traffic from the devices that connect to the 192.168.0.1 router to the 192.168.10.1 router(and eventually to the Internet), by passing through the server and an additional router. Almost 2 days have passed and I can't figure what is wrong. While searching on the Internet for some similar configuration I found some articles that are somehow related to my needs, but the proposed solutions don't seem to work for me. This is a similar article: iptables forwarding between two interface I done the following steps for the configuration process: Set static IP address 192.168.1.90 for the eth0 on the server from the 192.168.1.1 router Set static IP address 192.168.0.90 for the eth1 on the server from the 192.168.0.1 router Forwarded all the traffic from 192.168.0.1 router to the server on eth1 interface witch seems to be working. The router firmware has some option to redirect all the traffic from all the ports to a specified address. Added the following rules on the server(Only the following, there aren't any additional rules): iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state -–state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT I also tried changing iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state -–state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT into iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT but still is not working. After adding the following to enable the packet forwarding for the server that is running CentOS: echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 After a server restart and extra an extra check to see that all the configuration from above are still available I tried to see again if I can ping from a computer connected to 192.168.0.1/24 LAN the router from 192.168.1.1 but it didn't worked. The server has tshark(console wireshark) installed and I found that while sending a ping from a computer connected to 192.168.0.1 router to 192.168.1.1 the 192.168.0.90(eth1) receives the ping but it doesn't forward it to the eth0 interface as the rule tells: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT and don't now why this is happening. Questions: The iptables seem that don't work as I am expecting. Is there a need to add in the NAT table from iptables rules to redirect the traffic to the proper location, or is something else wrong with what I've done? I want to use tshark to view the traffic on the server because I think that is the best at doing this. Do you know something better that tshark to capture the traffic and maybe analyze it?

    Read the article

  • Cloud to On-Premise Connectivity Patterns

    - by Rajesh Raheja
    Do you have a requirement to convert an Opportunity in Salesforce.com to an Order/Quote in Oracle E-Business Suite? Or maybe you want the creation of an Oracle RightNow Incident to trigger an on-premise Oracle E-Business Suite Service Request creation for RMA and Field Scheduling? If so, read on. In a previous blog post, I discussed integrating TO cloud applications, however the use cases above are the reverse i.e. receiving data FROM cloud applications (SaaS) TO on-premise applications/databases that sit behind a firewall. Oracle SOA Suite is assumed to be on-premise with with Oracle Service Bus as the mediation and virtualization layer. The main considerations for the patterns are are security i.e. shielding enterprise resources; and scalability i.e. minimizing firewall latency. Let me use an analogy to help visualize the patterns: the on-premise system is your home - with your most valuable possessions - and the SaaS app is your favorite on-line store which regularly ships (inbound calls) various types of parcels/items (message types/service operations). You need the items at home (on-premise) but want to safe guard against misguided elements of society (internet threats) who may masquerade as postal workers and vandalize property (denial of service?). Let's look at the patterns. Pattern: Pull from Cloud The on-premise system polls from the SaaS apps and picks up the message instead of having it delivered. This may be done using Oracle RightNow Object Query Language or SOAP APIs. This is particularly suited for certain integration approaches wherein messages are trickling in, can be centralized and batched e.g. retrieving event notifications on an hourly schedule from the Oracle Messaging Service. To compare this pattern with the home analogy, you are avoiding any deliveries to your home and instead go to the post office/UPS/Fedex store to pick up your parcel. Every time. Pros: On-premise assets not exposed to the Internet, firewall issues avoided by only initiating outbound connections Cons: Polling mechanisms may affect performance, may not satisfy near real-time requirements Pattern: Open Firewall Ports The on-premise system exposes the web services that needs to be invoked by the cloud application. This requires opening up firewall ports, routing calls to the appropriate internal services behind the firewall. Fusion Applications uses this pattern, and auto-provisions the services on the various virtual hosts to secure the topology. This works well for service integration, but may not suffice for large volume data integration. Using the home analogy, you have now decided to receive parcels instead of going to the post office every time. A door mail slot cut out allows the postman can drop small parcels, but there is still concern about cutting new holes for larger packages. Pros: optimal pattern for near real-time needs, simpler administration once the service is provisioned Cons: Needs firewall ports to be opened up for new services, may not suffice for batch integration requiring direct database access Pattern: Virtual Private Networking The on-premise network is "extended" to the cloud (or an intermediary on-demand / managed service offering) using Virtual Private Networking (VPN) so that messages are delivered to the on-premise system in a trusted channel. Using the home analogy, you entrust a set of keys with a neighbor or property manager who receives the packages, and then drops it inside your home. Pros: Individual firewall ports don't need to be opened, more suited for high scalability needs, can support large volume data integration, easier management of one connection vs a multitude of open ports Cons: VPN setup, specific hardware support, requires cloud provider to support virtual private computing Pattern: Reverse Proxy / API Gateway The on-premise system uses a reverse proxy "API gateway" software on the DMZ to receive messages. The reverse proxy can be implemented using various mechanisms e.g. Oracle API Gateway provides firewall and proxy services along with comprehensive security, auditing, throttling benefits. If a firewall already exists, then Oracle Service Bus or Oracle HTTP Server virtual hosts can provide reverse proxy implementations on the DMZ. Custom built implementations are also possible if specific functionality (such as message store-n-forward) is needed. In the home analogy, this pattern sits in between cutting mail slots and handing over keys. Instead, you install (and maintain) a mailbox in your home premises outside your door. The post office delivers the parcels in your mailbox, from where you can securely retrieve it. Pros: Very secure, very flexible Cons: Introduces a new software component, needs DMZ deployment and management Pattern: On-Premise Agent (Tunneling) A light weight "agent" software sits behind the firewall and initiates the communication with the cloud, thereby avoiding firewall issues. It then maintains a bi-directional connection either with pull or push based approaches using (or abusing, depending on your viewpoint) the HTTP protocol. Programming protocols such as Comet, WebSockets, HTTP CONNECT, HTTP SSH Tunneling etc. are possible implementation options. In the home analogy, a resident receives the parcel from the postal worker by opening the door, however you still take precautions with chain locks and package inspections. Pros: Light weight software, IT doesn't need to setup anything Cons: May bypass critical firewall checks e.g. virus scans, separate software download, proliferation of non-IT managed software Conclusion The patterns above are some of the most commonly encountered ones for cloud to on-premise integration. Selecting the right pattern for your project involves looking at your scalability needs, security restrictions, sync vs asynchronous implementation, near real-time vs batch expectations, cloud provider capabilities, budget, and more. In some cases, the basic "Pull from Cloud" may be acceptable, whereas in others, an extensive VPN topology may be well justified. For more details on the Oracle cloud integration strategy, download this white paper.

    Read the article

  • Cloud to On-Premise Connectivity Patterns

    - by Rajesh Raheja
    Do you have a requirement to convert an Opportunity in Salesforce.com to an Order/Quote in Oracle E-Business Suite? Or maybe you want the creation of an Oracle RightNow Incident to trigger an on-premise Oracle E-Business Suite Service Request creation for RMA and Field Scheduling? If so, read on. In a previous blog post, I discussed integrating TO cloud applications, however the use cases above are the reverse i.e. receiving data FROM cloud applications (SaaS) TO on-premise applications/databases that sit behind a firewall. Oracle SOA Suite is assumed to be on-premise with with Oracle Service Bus as the mediation and virtualization layer. The main considerations for the patterns are are security i.e. shielding enterprise resources; and scalability i.e. minimizing firewall latency. Let me use an analogy to help visualize the patterns: the on-premise system is your home - with your most valuable possessions - and the SaaS app is your favorite on-line store which regularly ships (inbound calls) various types of parcels/items (message types/service operations). You need the items at home (on-premise) but want to safe guard against misguided elements of society (internet threats) who may masquerade as postal workers and vandalize property (denial of service?). Let's look at the patterns. Pattern: Pull from Cloud The on-premise system polls from the SaaS apps and picks up the message instead of having it delivered. This may be done using Oracle RightNow Object Query Language or SOAP APIs. This is particularly suited for certain integration approaches wherein messages are trickling in, can be centralized and batched e.g. retrieving event notifications on an hourly schedule from the Oracle Messaging Service. To compare this pattern with the home analogy, you are avoiding any deliveries to your home and instead go to the post office/UPS/Fedex store to pick up your parcel. Every time. Pros: On-premise assets not exposed to the Internet, firewall issues avoided by only initiating outbound connections Cons: Polling mechanisms may affect performance, may not satisfy near real-time requirements Pattern: Open Firewall Ports The on-premise system exposes the web services that needs to be invoked by the cloud application. This requires opening up firewall ports, routing calls to the appropriate internal services behind the firewall. Fusion Applications uses this pattern, and auto-provisions the services on the various virtual hosts to secure the topology. This works well for service integration, but may not suffice for large volume data integration. Using the home analogy, you have now decided to receive parcels instead of going to the post office every time. A door mail slot cut out allows the postman can drop small parcels, but there is still concern about cutting new holes for larger packages. Pros: optimal pattern for near real-time needs, simpler administration once the service is provisioned Cons: Needs firewall ports to be opened up for new services, may not suffice for batch integration requiring direct database access Pattern: Virtual Private Networking The on-premise network is "extended" to the cloud (or an intermediary on-demand / managed service offering) using Virtual Private Networking (VPN) so that messages are delivered to the on-premise system in a trusted channel. Using the home analogy, you entrust a set of keys with a neighbor or property manager who receives the packages, and then drops it inside your home. Pros: Individual firewall ports don't need to be opened, more suited for high scalability needs, can support large volume data integration, easier management of one connection vs a multitude of open ports Cons: VPN setup, specific hardware support, requires cloud provider to support virtual private computing Pattern: Reverse Proxy / API Gateway The on-premise system uses a reverse proxy "API gateway" software on the DMZ to receive messages. The reverse proxy can be implemented using various mechanisms e.g. Oracle API Gateway provides firewall and proxy services along with comprehensive security, auditing, throttling benefits. If a firewall already exists, then Oracle Service Bus or Oracle HTTP Server virtual hosts can provide reverse proxy implementations on the DMZ. Custom built implementations are also possible if specific functionality (such as message store-n-forward) is needed. In the home analogy, this pattern sits in between cutting mail slots and handing over keys. Instead, you install (and maintain) a mailbox in your home premises outside your door. The post office delivers the parcels in your mailbox, from where you can securely retrieve it. Pros: Very secure, very flexible Cons: Introduces a new software component, needs DMZ deployment and management Pattern: On-Premise Agent (Tunneling) A light weight "agent" software sits behind the firewall and initiates the communication with the cloud, thereby avoiding firewall issues. It then maintains a bi-directional connection either with pull or push based approaches using (or abusing, depending on your viewpoint) the HTTP protocol. Programming protocols such as Comet, WebSockets, HTTP CONNECT, HTTP SSH Tunneling etc. are possible implementation options. In the home analogy, a resident receives the parcel from the postal worker by opening the door, however you still take precautions with chain locks and package inspections. Pros: Light weight software, IT doesn't need to setup anything Cons: May bypass critical firewall checks e.g. virus scans, separate software download, proliferation of non-IT managed software Conclusion The patterns above are some of the most commonly encountered ones for cloud to on-premise integration. Selecting the right pattern for your project involves looking at your scalability needs, security restrictions, sync vs asynchronous implementation, near real-time vs batch expectations, cloud provider capabilities, budget, and more. In some cases, the basic "Pull from Cloud" may be acceptable, whereas in others, an extensive VPN topology may be well justified. For more details on the Oracle cloud integration strategy, download this white paper.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 9.10 and Squid 2.7 Transparent Proxy TCP_DENIED

    - by user38400
    Hi, We've spent the last two days trying to get squid 2.7 to work with ubuntu 9.10. The computer running ubuntu has two network interfaces: eth0 and eth1 with dhcp running on eth1. Both interfaces have static ip's, eth0 is connected to the Internet and eth1 is connected to our LAN. We have followed literally dozens of different tutorials with no success. The tutorial here was the last one we did that actually got us some sort of results: http://www.basicconfig.com/linuxnetwork/setup_ubuntu_squid_proxy_server_beginner_guide. When we try to access a site like seriouswheels.com from the LAN we get the following message on the client machine: ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved Invalid Request error was encountered while trying to process the request: GET / HTTP/1.1 Host: www.seriouswheels.com Connection: keep-alive User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/5.0.307.11 Safari/532.9 Cache-Control: max-age=0 Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,/;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Cookie: __utmz=88947353.1269218405.1.1.utmccn=(direct)|utmcsr=(direct)|utmcmd=(none); __qca=P0-1052556952-1269218405250; __utma=88947353.1027590811.1269218405.1269218405.1269218405.1; __qseg=Q_D Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3 Some possible problems are: Missing or unknown request method. Missing URL. Missing HTTP Identifier (HTTP/1.0). Request is too large. Content-Length missing for POST or PUT requests. Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Below are all the configuration files: /etc/squid/squid.conf, /etc/network/if-up.d/00-firewall, /etc/network/interfaces, /var/log/squid/access.log. Something somewhere is wrong but we cannot figure out where. Our end goal for all of this is the superimpose content onto every page that a client requests on the LAN. We've been told that squid is the way to do this but at this point in the game we are just trying to get squid setup correctly as our proxy. Thanks in advance. squid.conf acl all src all acl manager proto cache_object acl localhost src 127.0.0.1/32 acl to_localhost dst 127.0.0.0/8 acl localnet src 192.168.0.0/24 acl SSL_ports port 443 # https acl SSL_ports port 563 # snews acl SSL_ports port 873 # rsync acl Safe_ports port 80 # http acl Safe_ports port 21 # ftp acl Safe_ports port 443 # https acl Safe_ports port 70 # gopher acl Safe_ports port 210 # wais acl Safe_ports port 1025-65535 # unregistered ports acl Safe_ports port 280 # http-mgmt acl Safe_ports port 488 # gss-http acl Safe_ports port 591 # filemaker acl Safe_ports port 777 # multiling http acl Safe_ports port 631 # cups acl Safe_ports port 873 # rsync acl Safe_ports port 901 # SWAT acl purge method PURGE acl CONNECT method CONNECT http_access allow manager localhost http_access deny manager http_access allow purge localhost http_access deny purge http_access deny !Safe_ports http_access deny CONNECT !SSL_ports http_access allow localhost http_access allow localnet http_access deny all icp_access allow localnet icp_access deny all http_port 3128 hierarchy_stoplist cgi-bin ? cache_dir ufs /var/spool/squid/cache1 1000 16 256 access_log /var/log/squid/access.log squid refresh_pattern ^ftp: 1440 20% 10080 refresh_pattern ^gopher: 1440 0% 1440 refresh_pattern -i (/cgi-bin/|\?) 0 0% 0 refresh_pattern (Release|Package(.gz)*)$ 0 20% 2880 refresh_pattern . 0 20% 4320 acl shoutcast rep_header X-HTTP09-First-Line ^ICY.[0-9] upgrade_http0.9 deny shoutcast acl apache rep_header Server ^Apache broken_vary_encoding allow apache extension_methods REPORT MERGE MKACTIVITY CHECKOUT cache_mgr webmaster cache_effective_user proxy cache_effective_group proxy hosts_file /etc/hosts coredump_dir /var/spool/squid access.log 1269243042.740 0 192.168.1.11 TCP_DENIED/400 2576 GET NONE:// - NONE/- text/html 00-firewall iptables -F iptables -t nat -F iptables -t mangle -F iptables -X echo 1 | tee /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 3128 networking auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 142.104.109.179 netmask 255.255.224.0 gateway 142.104.127.254 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0

    Read the article

  • How to access remote lan machines through a ipsec / xl2ptd vpn (maybe iptables related)

    - by Simon
    I’m trying to do the setup of a IPSEC / XL2TPD VPN for our office, and I’m having some problems accessing the remote local machines after connecting to the VPN. I can connect, and I can browse Internet sites trough the VPN, but as said, I’m unable to connect or even ping the local ones. My Network setup is something like this: INTERNET eth0 ROUTER / VPN eth2 LAN These are some traceroutes behind the VPN: traceroute to google.com (173.194.78.94), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 192.168.1.80 (192.168.1.80) 74.738 ms 71.476 ms 70.123 ms 2 10.35.192.1 (10.35.192.1) 77.832 ms 77.578 ms 77.865 ms 3 10.47.243.137 (10.47.243.137) 78.837 ms 85.409 ms 76.032 ms 4 10.47.242.129 (10.47.242.129) 78.069 ms 80.054 ms 77.778 ms 5 10.254.4.2 (10.254.4.2) 86.174 ms 10.254.4.6 (10.254.4.6) 85.687 ms 10.254.4.2 (10.254.4.2) 85.664 ms traceroute to 192.168.1.3 (192.168.1.3), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 * * * 2 *traceroute: sendto: No route to host traceroute: wrote 192.168.1.3 52 chars, ret=-1 *traceroute: sendto: Host is down traceroute: wrote 192.168.1.3 52 chars, ret=-1 * traceroute: sendto: Host is down 3 traceroute: wrote 192.168.1.3 52 chars, ret=-1 *traceroute: sendto: Host is down traceroute: wrote 192.168.1.3 52 chars, ret=-1 These are my iptables rules: iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # allow lan to router traffic iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -i eth2 -j ACCEPT # ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport ssh -j ACCEPT # vpn iptables -A INPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p ah -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 500 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 4500 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport 1701 -j ACCEPT # dns iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -p udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE # logging iptables -I INPUT 5 -m limit --limit 1/min -j LOG --log-prefix "iptables denied: " --log-level 7 # block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP And here are some firewall log lines: Dec 6 11:11:57 router kernel: [8725820.003323] iptables denied: IN=ppp0 OUT= MAC= SRC=192.168.1.81 DST=192.168.1.3 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=62174 PROTO=UDP SPT=61910 DPT=53 LEN=40 Dec 6 11:12:29 router kernel: [8725852.035826] iptables denied: IN=ppp0 OUT= MAC= SRC=192.168.1.81 DST=224.0.0.1 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=1 ID=15344 PROTO=UDP SPT=56329 DPT=8612 LEN=24 Dec 6 11:12:36 router kernel: [8725859.121606] iptables denied: IN=ppp0 OUT= MAC= SRC=192.168.1.81 DST=224.0.0.1 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=1 ID=11767 PROTO=UDP SPT=63962 DPT=8612 LEN=24 Dec 6 11:12:44 router kernel: [8725866.203656] iptables denied: IN=ppp0 OUT= MAC= SRC=192.168.1.81 DST=224.0.0.1 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=1 ID=11679 PROTO=UDP SPT=57101 DPT=8612 LEN=24 Dec 6 11:12:51 router kernel: [8725873.285979] iptables denied: IN=ppp0 OUT= MAC= SRC=192.168.1.81 DST=224.0.0.1 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=1 ID=39165 PROTO=UDP SPT=62625 DPT=8612 LEN=24 I’m pretty sure that the problem should be related with iptables, but after trying a lot of different confs, I was unable to find the right one. Any help will be greetly appreciated ;). Kind regards, Simon. EDIT: This is my route table: default 62.43.193.33.st 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 62.43.193.32 * 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 192.168.1.81 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0

    Read the article

  • iptables rule(s) to send openvpn traffic from clients over an sshuttle tunnel?

    - by Sam Martin
    I have an Ubuntu 12.04 box with OpenVPN. The VPN is working as expected -- clients can connect, browse the Web, etc. The OpenVPN server IP is 10.8.0.1 on tun0. On that same box, I can use sshuttle to tunnel into another network to access a Web server on 10.10.0.9. sshuttle does its magic using the following iptables commands: iptables -t nat -N sshuttle-12300 iptables -t nat -F sshuttle-12300 iptables -t nat -I OUTPUT 1 -j sshuttle-12300 iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING 1 -j sshuttle-12300 iptables -t nat -A sshuttle-12300 -j REDIRECT --dest 10.10.0.0/24 -p tcp --to-ports 12300 -m ttl ! --ttl 42 iptables -t nat -A sshuttle-12300 -j RETURN --dest 127.0.0.0/8 -p tcp Is it possible to forward traffic from OpenVPN clients over the sshuttle tunnel to the remote Web server? I'd ultimately like to be able to set up any complicated tunneling on the server, and have relatively "dumb" clients (iPad, etc.) be able to access the remote servers via OpenVPN. Below is a basic diagram of the scenario: [Edit: added output from the OpenVPN box] $ sudo iptables -nL -v -t nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 1498 packets, 252K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1512 253K sshuttle-12300 all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 322 packets, 58984 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 584 packets, 43241 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 587 43421 sshuttle-12300 all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 589 packets, 43595 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1175 76298 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 10.8.0.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 Chain sshuttle-12300 (2 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 17 1076 REDIRECT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 10.10.0.0/24 TTL match TTL != 42 redir ports 12300 0 0 RETURN tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 127.0.0.0/8 $ sudo iptables -nL -v -t filter Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 97493 packets, 30M 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 131K 109M ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 1370 89160 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.8.0.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 REJECT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable [Edit 2: more OpenVPN server output] $ netstat -r Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.8.0.0 10.8.0.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.8.0.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 [Edit 3: still more debug output] IP forwarding appears to be enabled correctly on the OpenVPN server: # find /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ -name forwarding -ls -execdir cat {} \; 18926 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Mar 5 13:31 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/forwarding 1 18954 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Mar 5 13:31 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/default/forwarding 1 18978 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Mar 5 13:31 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/forwarding 1 19003 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Mar 5 13:31 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/lo/forwarding 1 19028 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Mar 5 13:31 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/tun0/forwarding 1 Client routing table: $ netstat -r Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire 0/1 10.8.0.5 UGSc 8 48 tun0 default 192.168.1.1 UGSc 2 1652 en1 10.8.0.1/32 10.8.0.5 UGSc 1 0 tun0 10.8.0.5 10.8.0.6 UHr 13 0 tun0 10.10.0/24 10.8.0.5 UGSc 0 0 tun0 <snip> Traceroute from client: $ traceroute 10.10.0.9 traceroute to 10.10.0.9 (10.10.0.9), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 10.8.0.1 (10.8.0.1) 5.403 ms 1.173 ms 1.086 ms 2 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 4.693 ms 2.110 ms 1.990 ms 3 l100.my-verizon-garbage (client-ext-ip) 7.453 ms 7.089 ms 6.248 ms 4 * * * 5 10.10.0.9 (10.10.0.9) 14.915 ms !N * 6.620 ms !N

    Read the article

  • How to use iptables to forward all data from an IP to a Virtual Machine

    - by jro
    OK, in an attempt to get some response, a TL;DR version. I know that the following command: iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -i eth0 --dport 80 --source 1.1.1.1 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080 ... will redirect all traffic from port 80 to port 8080. The problem is that I have to do this for every port that is to be redirected. To be future-proof, I want all ports for an IP to be redirected to a different (internal) IP, so that if one might decide to enable SSH, they can directly connect without worrying about iptables. What is needed to reliable forward all traffic from an external IP, to an internal IP, and vice versa? Extended version I've scoured the internet for this, but I never got a solid answer. What I have is one physical server (HOST), with several virtual machines (VM) that need traffic redirected to them. Just getting it to work with a single machine is enough for now. The VM's run under VirtualBox, and are set to use a host-only adapter (vboxnet0). Everything seems to work, but it is greatly lagging. Both the host (CentOS 5.6) and the guest (Ubuntu 10.04) machine are running Linux. What I did was the following: Configure the VM to have a static IP in the network of the vboxnet0 adapter. Add an IP alias to the host, registering to the dedicated (outside) IP. Setup iptables to allow traffic to come through (via sysctl). Configure iptables to DNAT and SNAT data from a given IP address to the internal address. iptables commands: sudo iptables -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -d $OUT_IP -I eth0 -j DNAT --to-destination $IN_IP iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -s $IN_IP -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source $OUT_IP Now the site works, but is really, really slow. I'm hoping I missed something simple, but I'm out of ideas for now. Some background info: before this, the site was working with basic port forwarding. E.g. port 80 was mapped to port 8080 using iptables. In VirtualBox (having the network adapter configured as NAT), a port forwarding the other way around made things work beautifully. The problem was twofold: first, multiple ports needed to be forwarded (for admin interfaces, https, ssh, etc). Second, it only allowed one IP address to use port 80. To resolve things, multiple external IP addresses are used for different (sub)domains. Likewise, the "VirtualBox" network will contain the virtual machines: DNS Ext. IP Adapter VM "VirtalBox" IP ------------------------------------------------------------------ a.example.com 1.1.1.1 eth0:1 vm_guest_1 192.168.56.1 b.example.com 2.2.2.2 eth0:2 vm_guest_2 192.168.56.2 c.example.com 3.3.3.3 eth0:3 vm_guest_3 192.168.56.3 And so on. Put simply, the goal is to channel all traffic from a.example.com to vm_guest_1 (of put differently, from 1.1.1.1 to 192.168.56.1). And achieve this with an acceptable speed :).

    Read the article

  • Can Microsoft Build Appliances?

    - by andrewbrust
    Billy Hollis, my Visual Studio Live! colleague and fellow Microsoft Regional Director said recently, and I am paraphrasing, that the computing world, especially on the consumer side, has shifted from one of building hardware and software that makes things possible to do, to building products and technologies that make things easy to do.  Billy crystalized things perfectly, as he often does. In this new world of “easy to do,” Apple has done very well and Microsoft has struggled.  In the old world, customers wanted a Swiss Army Knife, with the most gimmicks and gadgets possible.  In the new world, people want elegantly cutlery.  They may want cake cutters and utility knives too, but they don’t want one device that works for all three tasks.  People don’t want tools, they want utensils.  People don’t want machines.  They want appliances. Microsoft Appliances: They Do Exist Microsoft has built a few appliance-like devices.  I would say XBox 360 is an appliance,  It’s versatile, mind you, but it’s the kind of thing you plug in, turn on and use, as opposed to set-up, tune, and open up to upgrade the internals.  Windows Phone 7 is an appliance too.  It’s a true smartphone, unlike Windows Mobile which was a handheld computer with a radio stack.  Zune is an appliance too, and a nice one.  It hasn’t attained much traction in the market, but that’s probably because the seminal consumer computing appliance -- the iPod – got there so much more quickly. In the embedded world, Mediaroom, Microsoft’s set-top product for the cable industry (used by AT&T U-Verse and others) is an appliance.  So is Microsoft’s Sync technology, used in Ford automobiles.  Even on the enterprise side, Microsoft has an appliance: SQL Server Parallel Data Warehouse Edition (PDW) combines Microsoft software with select OEMs’ server, networking and storage hardware.  You buy the appliance units from the OEMs, plug them in, connect them and go. I would even say that Bing is an appliance.  Not in the hardware sense, mind you.  But from the software perspective, it’s a single-purpose product that you visit or run, use and then move on.  You don’t have to install it (except the iOS and Android native apps where it’s pretty straightforward), you don’t have to customize it, you don’t have to program it.  Basically, you just use it. Microsoft Appliances that Should Exist But Microsoft builds a bunch of things that are not appliances.  Media Center is not an appliance, and it most certainly should be.  Instead, it’s an app that runs on Windows 7.  It runs full-screen and you can use this configuration to conceal the fact that Windows is under it, but eventually something will cause you to abandon that masquerade (like Patch Tuesday). The next version of Windows Home Server won’t, in my opinion, be an appliance either.  Now that the Drive Extender technology is gone, and users can’t just add and remove drives into and from a single storage pool, the product is much more like a IT server and less like an appliance-premised one.  Much has been written about this decision by Microsoft.  I’ll just sum it up in one word: pity. Microsoft doesn’t have anything remotely appliance-like in the tablet category, either.  Until it does, it likely won’t have much market share in that space either.  And of course, the bulk of Microsoft’s product catalog on the business side is geared to enterprise machines and not personal appliances. Appliance DNA: They Gotta Have It. The consumerization of IT is real, because businesspeople are consumers too.  They appreciate the fit and finish of appliances at home, and they increasingly feel entitled to have it at work too.  Secure and reliable push email in a smartphone is necessary, but it isn’t enough.  People want great apps and a pleasurable user experience too.  The full Microsoft Office product is needed at work, but a PC with a keyboard and mouse, or maybe a touch screen that uses a stylus (or requires really small fingers), to run Office isn’t enough either.  People want a flawless touch experience available for the times they want to read and take quick notes.  Until Microsoft realizes this fully and internalizes it, it will suffer defeats in the consumer market and even setbacks in the business market.  Think about how slow the Office upgrade cycle is…now imagine if the next version of Office had a first-class alternate touch UI and consider the possible acceleration in adoption rates. Can Microsoft make the appliance switch?  Can the appliance mentality become pervasive at the company?  Can Microsoft hasten its release cycles dramatically and shed the “some assembly required” paradigm upon which many of its products are based?  Let’s face it, the chances that Microsoft won’t make this transition are significant. But there are also encouraging signs, and they should not be ignored.  The appliances we have already discussed, especially Xbox, Zune and Windows Phone 7, are the most obvious in this regard.  The fact that SQL Server has an appliance SKU now is a more subtle but perhaps also more significant outcome, because that product sits so smack in the middle of Microsoft’s enterprise stack.  Bing is encouraging too, especially given its integrated travel, maps and augmented reality capabilities.  As Bing gains market share, Microsoft has tangible proof that it can transform and win, even when everyone outside the company, and many within it, would bet otherwise. That Great Big Appliance in the Sky Perhaps the most promising (and evolving) proof points toward the appliance mentality, though, are Microsoft’s cloud offerings -- Azure and BPOS/Office 365.  While the cloud does not represent a physical appliance (quite the opposite in fact) its ability to make acquisition, deployment and use of technology simple for the user is absolutely an embodiment of the appliance mentality and spirit.  Azure is primarily a platform as a service offering; it doesn’t just provide infrastructure.  SQL Azure does likewise for databases.  And Office 365 does likewise for SharePoint, Exchange and Lync. You don’t administer, tune and manage servers; instead, you create databases or site collections or mailboxes and start using them. Upgrades come automatically, and it seems like releases will come more frequently.  Fault tolerance and content distribution is just there.  No muss.  No fuss.  You use these services; you don’t have to set them up and think about them.  That’s how appliances work.  To me, these signs point out that Microsoft has the full capability of transforming itself.  But there’s a lot of work ahead.  Microsoft may say they’re “all in” on the cloud, but the majority of the company is still oriented around its old products and models.  There needs to be a wholesale cultural transformation in Redmond.  It can happen, but product management, program management, the field and executive ranks must unify in the effort. So must partners, and even customers.  New leaders must rise up and Microsoft must be able to see itself as a winner.  If Microsoft does this, it could lock-in decades of new success, and be a standard business school case study for doing so.  If not, the company will have missed an opportunity, and may see its undoing.

    Read the article

  • How do I configure OpenVPN for accessing the internet with one NIC?

    - by Lekensteyn
    I've been trying to get OpenVPN to work for three days. After reading many questions, the HOWTO, the FAQ and even parts of a guide to Linux networking, I cannot get my an Internet connection to the Internet. I'm trying to set up a OpenVPN server on a VPS, which will be used for: secure access to the Internet bypassing port restrictions (directadmin/2222 for example) an IPv6 connection (my client does only have IPv4 connectivity, while the VPS has both IPv4 and native IPv6 connectivity) (if possible) I can connect to my server and access the machine (HTTP), but Internet connectivity fails completely. I'm using ping 8.8.8.8 for testing whether my connection works or not. Using tcpdump and iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j LOG, I can confirm that the packets reach my server. If I ping to 8.8.8.8 on the VPS, I get an echo-reply from 8.8.8.8 as expected. When pinging from the client, I do not get an echo-reply. The VPS has only one NIC: etho. It runs on Xen. Summary: I want to have a secure connection between my laptop and the Internet using OpenVPN. If that works, I want to have IPv6 connectivity as well. Network setup and software: Home laptop (eth0: 192.168.2.10) (tap0: 10.8.0.2) | | (running Kubuntu 10.10; OpenVPN 2.1.0-3ubuntu1) | wifi | router/gateway (gateway 192.168.2.1) | INTERNET | VPS (eth0:1.2.3.4) (gateway, tap0: 10.8.0.1) (running Debian 6; OpenVPN 2.1.3-2) wifi and my home router should not cause problems since all traffic goes encrypted over UDP port 1194. I've turned IP forwarding on: # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables has been configured to allow forwarding traffic as well: iptables -F FORWARD iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -j DROP I've tried each of these rules separately without luck (flushing the chains before executing): iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to 1.2.3.4 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE route -n before (server): 1.2.3.4 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 1.2.3.4 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 route -n after (server): 1.2.3.4 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.8.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 tap0 0.0.0.0 1.2.3.4 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 route -n before (client): 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 2 0 0 wlan0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 wlan0 route -n after (client): 1.2.3.4 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 wlan0 10.8.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 tap0 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 2 0 0 wlan0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 wlan0 0.0.0.0 10.8.0.1 128.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tap0 128.0.0.0 10.8.0.1 128.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tap0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 wlan0 SERVER config proto udp dev tap ca ca.crt cert server.crt key server.key dh dh1024.pem server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 push "redirect-gateway def1" ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt keepalive 10 120 tls-auth ta.key 0 comp-lzo user nobody group nobody persist-key persist-tun log-append openvpn-log verb 3 mute 10 CLIENT config dev tap proto udp remote 1.2.3.4 1194 resolv-retry infinite nobind persist-key persist-tun ca ca.crt cert client.crt key client.key ns-cert-type server tls-auth ta.key 1 comp-lzo verb 3 mute 20 traceroute 8.8.8.8 works as expected (similar output without OpenVPN activated): 1 10.8.0.1 (10.8.0.1) 24.276 ms 26.891 ms 29.454 ms 2 gw03.sbp.directvps.nl (178.21.112.1) 31.161 ms 31.890 ms 34.458 ms 3 ge0-v0652.cr0.nik-ams.nl.as8312.net (195.210.57.105) 35.353 ms 36.874 ms 38.403 ms 4 ge0-v3900.cr0.nik-ams.nl.as8312.net (195.210.57.53) 41.311 ms 41.561 ms 43.006 ms 5 * * * 6 209.85.248.88 (209.85.248.88) 147.061 ms 36.931 ms 28.063 ms 7 216.239.49.36 (216.239.49.36) 31.109 ms 33.292 ms 216.239.49.28 (216.239.49.28) 64.723 ms 8 209.85.255.130 (209.85.255.130) 49.350 ms 209.85.255.126 (209.85.255.126) 49.619 ms 209.85.255.122 (209.85.255.122) 52.416 ms 9 google-public-dns-a.google.com (8.8.8.8) 41.266 ms 44.054 ms 44.730 ms If you have any suggestions, please comment or answer. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Linux policy routing - packets not coming back

    - by Bugsik
    i am trying to set up policy routing on my home server. My network looks like this: Host routed VPN gateway Internet link through VPN 192.168.0.35/24 ---> 192.168.0.5/24 ---> 192.168.0.1 DSL router 10.200.2.235/22 .... .... 10.200.0.1 VPN server The traffic from 192.168.0.32/27 should be and is routed through VPN. I wanted to define some routing policies to route some traffic from 192.168.0.5 through VPN as well - for start - from user with uid 2000. Policy routing is done using iptables mark target and ip rule fwmark. The problem: When connecting using user 2000 from 192.168.0.5 tcpdump shows outgoing packets, but nothing comes back. Traffic from 192.168.0.35 works fine (here I am not using fwmark but src policy). Here is my VPN gateway setup: # uname -a Linux placebo 3.2.0-34-generic #53-Ubuntu SMP Thu Nov 15 10:49:02 UTC 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux # iptables -V iptables v1.4.12 # ip -V ip utility, iproute2-ss111117 IPtables rules (all policies in table filter are ACCEPT) # iptables -t mangle -nvL Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 770K packets, 314M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 767K packets, 312M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 5520 packets, 1920K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 782K packets, 901M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 74 4707 MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner UID match 2000 MARK set 0x3 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 788K packets, 903M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination # iptables -t nat -nvL Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 996 packets, 51172 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 7 packets, 432 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 1364 packets, 112K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 2302 packets, 160K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 119 7588 MASQUERADE all -- * vpn 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Routing: # ip addr show 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,PROMISC,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast master lan state UNKNOWN qlen 1000 link/ether 00:40:63:f9:c3:8f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 3: lan: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP link/ether 00:40:63:f9:c3:8f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.0.5/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global lan inet6 fe80::240:63ff:fef9:c38f/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 4: vpn: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN qlen 100 link/none inet 10.200.2.235/22 brd 10.200.3.255 scope global vpn # ip rule show 0: from all lookup local 32764: from all fwmark 0x3 lookup VPN 32765: from 192.168.0.32/27 lookup VPN 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default # ip route show table VPN default via 10.200.0.1 dev vpn 10.200.0.0/22 dev vpn proto kernel scope link src 10.200.2.235 192.168.0.0/24 dev lan proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.5 # ip route show default via 192.168.0.1 dev lan metric 100 10.200.0.0/22 dev vpn proto kernel scope link src 10.200.2.235 192.168.0.0/24 dev lan proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.5 TCP dump showing no traffic coming back when connection is made from 192.168.0.5 user 2000 # tcpdump -i vpn tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on vpn, link-type RAW (Raw IP), capture size 65535 bytes ### Traffic from user 2000 on 192.168.0.5 ### 10:19:05.629985 IP 10.200.2.235.37291 > 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http: Flags [S], seq 2868799562, win 14600, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 6887764 ecr 0,nop,wscale 4], length 0 10:19:21.678001 IP 10.200.2.235.37291 > 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http: Flags [S], seq 2868799562, win 14600, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 6891776 ecr 0,nop,wscale 4], length 0 ### Traffic from 192.168.0.35 ### 10:23:12.066174 IP 10.200.2.235.49247 > 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http: Flags [S], seq 2294159276, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 4,nop,nop,TS val 557451322 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 10:23:12.265640 IP 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http > 10.200.2.235.49247: Flags [S.], seq 2521908813, ack 2294159277, win 14480, options [mss 1367,sackOK,TS val 388565772 ecr 557451322,nop,wscale 1], length 0 10:23:12.276573 IP 10.200.2.235.49247 > 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http: Flags [.], ack 1, win 8214, options [nop,nop,TS val 557451534 ecr 388565772], length 0 10:23:12.293030 IP 10.200.2.235.49247 > 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http: Flags [P.], seq 1:480, ack 1, win 8214, options [nop,nop,TS val 557451552 ecr 388565772], length 479 10:23:12.574773 IP 10.100-78-194.akamai.com.http > 10.200.2.235.49247: Flags [.], ack 480, win 7776, options [nop,nop,TS val 388566081 ecr 557451552], length 0

    Read the article

  • IPTables masquerading with one NIC

    - by Tuinslak
    Hi, I am running an OpenVPN server with only one NIC. This is my current layout: public.ip > Cisco firewall > lan.ip > OpenVPN server lan.ip = 192.168.22.70 The Cisco firewall forwards the requests to the oVPN server, thus so far everything works and clients are able to connect. However, all clients connected should be able to access 3 networks: lan1: 192.168.200.0 (vpn lan) > tun0 lan2: 192.168.110.0 (office lan) > eth1 (gw 192.168.22.1) lan3: 192.168.22.0 (server lan) > eth1 (broadcast network) So tun0 is mapped to eth1. Iptables output: # iptables-save # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.2 on Wed Feb 16 14:14:20 2011 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [327:26098] :FORWARD DROP [305:31700] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [291:27378] -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i tun0 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i ! tun0 -p udp -m udp --dport 67 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A INPUT -i ! tun0 -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A FORWARD -d 192.168.200.0/24 -i tun0 -j DROP -A FORWARD -s 192.168.200.0/24 -i tun0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -d 192.168.200.0/24 -i eth1 -j ACCEPT COMMIT # Completed on Wed Feb 16 14:14:20 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.2 on Wed Feb 16 14:14:20 2011 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [302:26000] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [3:377] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [49:3885] -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Wed Feb 16 14:14:20 2011 Yet, clients are unable to ping any ip (including 192.168.200.1, which is the oVPN's IP) When the machine was directly connected to the internet, with 2 NICs, it was quite simply solved with masquerading and adding static routes in the oVPN client's config. However, as masquerading won't accept virtual interfaces (eth0:0, etc) I am unable to get masquerading to work again (and I'm not even sure whether I need virtual interfaces). Thanks. Edit: OpenVPN server: # ifconfig eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr ba:e6:64:ec:57:ac inet addr:192.168.22.70 Bcast:192.168.22.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::b8e6:64ff:feec:57ac/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:6857 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4044 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:584046 (570.3 KiB) TX bytes:473691 (462.5 KiB) Interrupt:14 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:334 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:334 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:33773 (32.9 KiB) TX bytes:33773 (32.9 KiB) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:192.168.200.1 P-t-P:192.168.200.2 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) ifconfig on a client: # ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:22:64:71:11:56 inet addr:192.168.110.94 Bcast:192.168.110.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::222:64ff:fe71:1156/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:3466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:1838 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:997924 (974.5 KiB) TX bytes:332406 (324.6 KiB) Interrupt:17 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:37847 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:37847 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:2922444 (2.7 MiB) TX bytes:2922444 (2.7 MiB) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:192.168.200.30 P-t-P:192.168.200.29 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:689 errors:0 dropped:18 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:468778 (457.7 KiB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:ea:db:ae:86 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:704699 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:730176 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:520385963 (496.2 MiB) TX bytes:225210422 (214.7 MiB) static routes line at the end of the client's config (I've been playing around with the 192.168.200.0 -- (un)commenting to see if anything changes): route 192.168.200.0 255.255.255.0 route 192.168.110.0 255.255.255.0 route 192.168.22.0 255.255.255.0 route on a vpn client: # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.200.29 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.22.0 192.168.200.29 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.200.0 192.168.200.29 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.110.0 192.168.200.29 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.110.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.110.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 edit: Weirdly enough, if I set push "redirect-gateway def1" in the server config, (and thus routes all traffic through VPN, which is not what I want), it seems to work.

    Read the article

  • Packets marked by iptables only sent to the correct routing table sometimes

    - by cookiecaper
    I am trying to route packets generated by a specific user out over a VPN. I have this configuration: $ sudo iptables -S -t nat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT -A POSTROUTING -o tun0 -j MASQUERADE $ sudo iptables -S -t mangle -P PREROUTING ACCEPT -P INPUT ACCEPT -P FORWARD ACCEPT -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner guy -j MARK --set-xmark 0xb/0xffffffff $ sudo ip rule show 0: from all lookup local 32765: from all fwmark 0xb lookup 11 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default $ sudo ip route show table 11 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.6 10.8.0.6 dev tun0 scope link 10.8.0.1 via 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 0.0.0.0/1 via 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 $ sudo iptables -S -t raw -P PREROUTING ACCEPT -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner guy -j TRACE -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j TRACE It seems that some sites work fine and use the VPN, but others don't and fall back to the normal interface. This is bad. This is a packet trace that used VPN: Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976052] TRACE: raw:OUTPUT:rule:2 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976105] TRACE: raw:OUTPUT:policy:3 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976164] TRACE: mangle:OUTPUT:rule:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976210] TRACE: mangle:OUTPUT:policy:2 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976269] TRACE: nat:OUTPUT:policy:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976320] TRACE: filter:OUTPUT:policy:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976367] TRACE: mangle:POSTROUTING:policy:1 IN= OUT=tun0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:24:28 agent kernel: [612979.976414] TRACE: nat:POSTROUTING:rule:1 IN= OUT=tun0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=23.1.17.194 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=14494 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=57502 DPT=80 SEQ=2294732931 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6E01D0000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb and this is one that didn't: Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662559] TRACE: raw:OUTPUT:rule:2 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662609] TRACE: raw:OUTPUT:policy:3 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662664] TRACE: mangle:OUTPUT:rule:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662709] TRACE: mangle:OUTPUT:policy:2 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662761] TRACE: nat:OUTPUT:policy:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662808] TRACE: filter:OUTPUT:policy:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb Oct 27 00:22:41 agent kernel: [612873.662855] TRACE: mangle:POSTROUTING:policy:1 IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=XXX.YYY.ZZZ.AAA DST=209.68.27.16 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=40425 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=45305 DPT=80 SEQ=604973951 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 OPT (020405B40402080A03A6B6960000000001030307) UID=999 GID=999 MARK=0xb I have already tried "ip route flush cache", to no avail. I do not know why the first packet goes through the correct routing table, and the second doesn't. Both are marked. Once again, I do not want ALL packets system-wide to go through the VPN, I only want packets from a specific user (UID=999) to go through the VPN. I am testing ipchicken.com and walmart.com via links, from the same user, same shell. walmart.com appears to use the VPN; ipchicken.com does not. Any help appreciated. Will send 0.5 bitcoins to answerer who makes this fixed.

    Read the article

  • Can't ping other machines at Linux VPN PPTP server's local lan from outside

    - by Marco Sanchez
    Before anything else, hello guys, this is the first time I ask for something here so I hope someone can give me a hand, please look at the following network diagram: --------------------------------------------------------------- VPN Server Webserver (SuSE SLES11) | | | ------- VPN LAN -------- | Router with Unique IP (With Port Forwarding rules set and VPN through enabled) | PPTP connection over Internet | Workstation (PC or Laptop with Windows) --------------------------------------------------------------- So the idea is for the workstation to connect to the PPTP Server and then be able to access a Web Application on the Webserver, right now I have the PPTP server configured and the VPN works, I can connect to the SLES11 server with no problems from the workstation and I can ping it and everything works fine but if I try to ping the Webserver from the workstation, I can't reach it, I'm making a mistake somewhere but I don't see where, please note that I'm not a network expert and thus I'd greatly appreciate some specific guidance. Here is some info related to the IPs --------------------------------------------------------------- *** SLES11 VPN Server has 2 Network cards: -- eth0 (Internal Network) IP: 192.168.210.5 MASK: 255.55.255.0 -- eth1 (External Network) IP: 192.168.1.105 MASK: 255.55.255.0 *** Webserver has 1 network card -- eth0 (Internal Network) IP: 192.168.210.221 MASK: 255.55.255.0 *** Workstation -- IP info once connection has been established to the VPN PPP adapter Test VPN Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Test VPN Connection Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.210.110(Preferred) Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 189.209.208.181 (Defined as part of the PPTP Server options config script) 189.209.127.244 Primary WINS Server . . . . . . . : 192.168.210.220 (Defined as part of the PPTP Server options config script) NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled --------------------------------------------------------------- I also defined the following within IP tables: ------------------------------------------------------------- iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p gre -j ACCEPT ------------------------------------------------------------- If you need any piece of information from the PPTP server scripts please let me know, the thing is that I can actually connect to the VPN server and access its services and everything but after that I can't reach any other computer on that LAN. Any help would be greatly appreciated and thanks in advance

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >