Search Results

Search found 1454 results on 59 pages for 'eth0'.

Page 7/59 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • No client internet access when setting up these iptables rules

    - 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

  • QNAP (469L) with Debian: can't connect to router

    - by agtoever
    I've been running my QNAP 469L with Debian (Wheezy deb7u3) for a few months. Yesterday I upgraded the memory to 4 GB. The system boots fine, but since the upgrade, I'm not able to connect the server to my router (a TP-Link WR941ND). My configuration: The router runs a DHCP server (192.168.67.100 and up), with a preconfigured ip address for the QNAP (192.168.67.10). The router is on 192.168.67.1. As said, Debian is installed on the QNAP (which can be regarded as a normal computer). Networking hardware on the QNAP: Intel PRO/1000 Network Connection using the e1000e kernel module. This is what I have tried so far: Replace the network cable (tried 3 different cables on different router ports). Check for messages from the kernel: dmesg | grep eth. Besides the normal hardware messages I get a ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready for each call to ifup. Manually restart the network sudo server networking restart Check sudo ifconfig (eth0 is up, but no ip addresses). Check the /etc/network/interfaces which has (besides the loopback device) an allow-hotplug eth0 and iface eth0 inet dhcp, which is afaik the default Debian configuration. Since the server has two ethernet ports, I checked if I'm using the right port (checked the hardware address that ifconfig reports for eth0 is the same as the hardware address that is in the preconfigured ip address for the server in the router. Do a manual sudo ifdown eth0 && sudo ifup eth0 with no results (but an extra ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready in the kernel log) Do a dhcp request dhclient -v eth0: for about a minute requests are send (according to the terminal) and at the end I get a No DHCPOFFERS received. No working leases in persistent database - sleeping.. Check the router system log if DHCP requests are received. I see them for some devices (my Mac, my iPhone) but not from the QNAP. The log entry looks like: DHCPS:Recv REQUEST from 84:85:06:07:75:6A and then a DHCPS:Send ACK to 192.168.67.101. There are no records from the QNAP's hardware address. So the two error messages that I do get are: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready for every ifup and No DHCPOFFERS received. No working leases in persistent database - sleeping. for every DHCP call.

    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

  • Simulated NAT Traversal on Virtual Box

    - by Sumit Arora
    I have installed virtual box ( with Two virtual Adapters(NAT-type)) - Host (Ubuntu -10.10) - Guest-Opensuse-11.4 . Objective : Trying to simulate all four types of NAT as defined here : https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/TOP/NAT+Traversal+Testing Simulating the various kinds of NATs can be done using Linux iptables. In these examples, eth0 is the private network and eth1 is the public network. Full-cone iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -j DNAT --to-destination Restricted cone iptables -t nat POSTROUTING -o eth1 -p tcp -j SNAT --to-source iptables -t nat POSTROUTING -o eth1 -p udp -j SNAT --to-source iptables -t nat PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -j DNAT --to-destination iptables -t nat PREROUTING -i eth1 -p udp -j DNAT --to-destination iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p udp -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -j DROP iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p udp -m state --state NEW -j DROP Port-restricted cone iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source Symmentric echo "1" /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables --flush iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE --random iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT What I did : OpenSuse guest with Two Virtual adapters - eth0 and eth1 -- eth1 with address 10.0.3.15 /eth1:1 as 10.0.3.16 -- eth0 with address 10.0.2.15 now running stund(http://sourceforge.net/projects/stun/) client/server : Server eKimchi@linux-6j9k:~/sw/stun/stund ./server -v -h 10.0.3.15 -a 10.0.3.16 Client eKimchi@linux-6j9k:~/sw/stun/stund ./client -v 10.0.3.15 -i 10.0.2.15 On all Four Cases It is giving same results : test I = 1 test II = 1 test III = 1 test I(2) = 1 is nat = 0 mapped IP same = 1 hairpin = 1 preserver port = 1 Primary: Open Return value is 0x000001 Q-1 :Please let me know If any has ever done, It should behave like NAT as per description but nowhere it working as a NAT. Q-2: How NAT Implemented in Home routers (Usually Port Restricted), but those also pre-configured iptables rules and tuned Linux

    Read the article

  • keepalived issues on xen domU

    - by David Cournapeau
    Hi, I cannot manage to run keepalived correctly on xen domU. I am following this link for configuration, and it works great on some local VM (running with KVM). If I set up the exact same configuration, but on xen domU, it does not work: both servers do not see each other and decide to be master (10.120.100.99 being the virtual IP) $ sudo ip addr sh eth0 # host1 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 link/ether 00:16:3e:78:f5:31 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 10.120.100.104/24 brd 10.120.100.255 scope global eth0 inet 10.120.100.99/32 scope global eth0 inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe78:f531/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever $ sudo ip addr sh eth0 # host2 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 link/ether 00:16:3e:51:36:20 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 10.120.100.105/24 brd 10.120.100.255 scope global eth0 inet 10.120.100.99/32 scope global eth0 inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe51:3620/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever Is there a way I could debug this - it seems some people are able to use keepalived on xen following some mailing list, but without much info on their config.

    Read the article

  • Adding Netem Filter Rules

    - by fontsix
    iam new in programming and using linux. My Question is, is it possible to add Netem Filter Rules later ? I want to create an PHP-Interface for Netem and I don't know how much filters were required. This should be some kind of dynamically. In Example : A user with a static IP starts an Netem Command (Latency) with PHP Interface this means these five command werde executed by php in the first step $classid = 11; $handle = 10; "sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle 1: root htb"; "sudo tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:1 htb rate 100Mbps"; "sudo tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:$classid htb rate 100Mbps"; "sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:$classid handle $handle: netem delay 100ms"; "sudo tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 3 u32 match ip dst $dest flowid 1:$classid"; Now, if there would be a second user who wants to use Netem independent of the first user, i only want to execute the last 3 commands, like "sudo tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:$classid htb rate 100Mbps"; "sudo tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:$classid handle $handle: netem delay 100ms"; "sudo tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 1:0 prio 3 u32 match ip dst $dest flowid 1:$classid"; There is an Algorithmus for increasing variables $classid and $handle. This should work. Now my Question: Is it possible only to add these 3 commands to add a new class with new qdisc and a new filter rule ? Or how can i realize it ? The Apache Error_log tells me "sh: line 1: flowid: command not found" but i can't find any mistake. I hope you could help Best regards fontsix

    Read the article

  • Linux VLAN Bridge

    - by raspi
    I have home network with VLANs, one for LAN, one for WLAN and one for internet. I'd like to use bridging so that instead of configuring these same VLANs to every machine, they had own VLAN ID and bridges were LAN, WLAN and internet. I've tried it but for some reason keep-alive/ttl seems to get broken because SSH sessions etc suddenly disconnects. We have this same setup working in workplace for 4+ years with 100+ customers but it's custom firewall/router hardware so accessing it is impossible. I know that it runs Linux. So what is Debian/Ubuntu default network settings doing wrong or is it just NIC driver/hw problem? I've tried to mess araund with ttl etc settings without any luck. The bad stuff is happening in the bridge because current VLAN-only setup works fine. interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth0 inet static iface eth1 inet static auto vlan111 auto vlan222 auto vlan333 auto vlan444 auto br0 auto br1 auto br2 # LAN iface vlan111 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # WLAN iface vlan222 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # ADSL Modem iface vlan333 inet static vlan_raw_device eth1 # Internet iface vlan444 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # LAN bridge iface br0 inet static address 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.111 bridge_stp on # Internet bridge iface br1 inet static address x.x.x.x netmask x.x.x.x gateway x.x.x.x bridge_ports eth1.333 eth0.444 bridge_stp on post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE pre-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE # WLAN bridge iface br2 inet static address 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.222 bridge_stp on Sysctl: net.ipv4.conf.default.forwarding=1

    Read the article

  • Debian, 2 NICs load-balancing or agregating with one same gateway

    - by pouney
    Hi, I have one server, with double NICs connected to one switch with the same gateway. Behind the switch we have internet. |Debian| - eth0 - switch - internet - eth1 - same I don't understand how to load-balancing between eth0 and eth1. The inbound/outbound traffic always use eth1. This is the config: # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.248.82 netmask 255.255.255.240 network 192.168.248.80 broadcast 192.168.248.95 gateway 192.168.248.81 allow-hotplug eth1 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.248.83 netmask 255.255.255.240 network 192.168.248.80 broadcast 192.168.248.95 gateway 192.168.248.81 Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.248.80 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.248.80 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.248.81 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.248.81 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Ips aren't real, it's just for the example. Anybody have an idea on correct routing to use eth0 on 192.168.248.82 and eth1 on 192.168.248.83 ? I have many example for multiple gateway but here it's the same. Thanks all. Regards

    Read the article

  • Routing / binding 128 IPs to one server

    - by Andrew
    I have a Ubuntu server with 128 ip's (static external ips 86.xx.xx.16), and I want to crawl pages thru different ip's. The gateway is xx.xxx.xxx.1, the main ip is xx.xxx.xxx.16, and the other 128 ip's are xx.xxx.xxx.129/255. I tried this configuration in /etc/network/interfaces but I doesn't work. It work if I remove the gateway for the aliases eth0:0 and eth0:1. I think this is routing problem. auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 auto eth0:0 auto eth0:1 iface eth0 inet static address xx.xxx.xxx.16 netmask 255.255.255.128 gateway xx.xxx.xxx.1 iface eth0:0 inet static address xx.xxx.xxx.129 netmask 255.255.255.128 gateway xx.xxx.xxx.1 iface eth0:1 inet static address xx.xxx.xxx.130 netmask 255.255.255.128 gateway xx.xxx.xxx.1 Also, please tell me how to "reset" every changes that I made in networking and routing. Update: I removed the gateway and now it works. I can reach the website thru all 128 ip's. But when I try to bind a socket connection in php to a specific ip I get no answer. socket_bind($sock, "xx.xxx.xx.xxx"); socket_connect($sock, 'google.com', 80); I tryed to use a sniffer to see the packets, and I see the packet sent from binded ip to google.com but the "connection" can't be established. I don't know anything about "route" command, but I have a feeling that this is the solution.

    Read the article

  • Excessive denied requests for port 58322 in syslog

    - by Nathan C.
    My iptables is setup to block all unneeded ports as it should but I'm checking my syslog due to these random but all-to-frequent apache2 crashes and I noticed a lot of requests such as this. In all the archived syslogs that I have these are present from different IP addresses. There is a similar question with an accepted here: What service uses UDP port 60059? Jun 4 06:49:27 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=218.7.74.50 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=129 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=115 ID=27636 PROTO=UDP SPT=9520 DPT=58322 LEN=109 Jun 4 06:49:31 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=95.160.226.177 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=116 ID=31468 PROTO=UDP SPT=47642 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:49:54 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=78.137.36.10 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=118 ID=21872 PROTO=UDP SPT=57872 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:50:14 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=111.253.217.11 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=116 ID=28882 PROTO=UDP SPT=51826 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:51:02 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=189.45.114.173 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x16 PREC=0x00 TTL=113 ID=19985 PROTO=UDP SPT=41087 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:51:09 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=87.89.202.28 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=116 ID=7874 PROTO=UDP SPT=17524 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:51:20 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=24.44.124.35 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=118 ID=12978 PROTO=UDP SPT=45596 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:51:22 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=81.174.48.236 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=93 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=48 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=21352 DPT=58322 LEN=73 Jun 4 06:51:23 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=124.107.61.84 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=131 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=114 ID=13038 PROTO=UDP SPT=14357 DPT=58322 LEN=111 Jun 4 06:51:30 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=88.8.23.200 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=123 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=117 ID=21062 PROTO=UDP SPT=4291 DPT=58322 LEN=103 Jun 4 06:51:54 HOSTNAME kernel: iptables denied: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=fe:fd:ad:ff:dd:95:c8:4c:75:f5:d6:3f:08:00 SRC=80.202.244.234 DST=MY.SERVER.IP.HERE LEN=129 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=114 ID=339 PROTO=UDP SPT=14020 DPT=58322 LEN=109 I'm not overly experienced with server configuration and debugging, so I only just installed logcheck after reading that previous question. I guess my question is what steps should I take after reading this log info to 1) further protect myself, 2) understand if this could be causing any other problems with my VPS, and 3) use this data to help others?

    Read the article

  • Issue with setting up multiple IP addresses on ubuntu server installation

    - by varunyellina
    I want to setup two ip addresses on my system for access through lan. This is my config on my other system. Desktop Installation My desktop installation runs with multiple IP's added through networkmanager both through lan and wifi. Server Installation On my server install I've edited /etc/network/interfaces to the following. auto eth0 auto eth0:1 # IP-1 iface eth0 inet static address 172.16.35.35 network 172.16.34.1 netmask 255.255.254.0 broadcast 172.166.35.255 dns-nameservers 172.16.100.221 8.8.8.8 # IP-2 iface eth0:1 inet static address 172.16.34.34 network 172.16.34.1 netmask 255.255.254.0 gateway 172.16.34.1 broadcast 172.16.35.255 After restarting through "/etc/init.d/networking restart" I recieve "Failed to bring up eth0:1" What am I doing wrong? Thankyou.

    Read the article

  • How can I set my linux box as a router to forward ip packets?

    - by UniMouS
    I am doing a network experiment about ip packet forwarding, but I don't know why it does work. I have a linux machine with two network interfaces, eth0 and eth1 both with static IP address (eth0: 192.168.100.1, eth1: 192.168.101.2). My goal is simple, I just want to forward ip packets from eth1 with destination in subnet 192.168.100.0/24 to eth0, and forward ip packets from eth0 with destination in subnet 192.168.101.0/24 to eth1. I turned on ip forwarding with: sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 my routing table is like this: # 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 eth0 192.168.101.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 But, when I try to ping from 192.168.100.25 to 192.168.101.47, it does not work.

    Read the article

  • Cannot connect to ethernet port

    - by Jnir
    I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 LTE. I'm trying to connect via ethernet for the first time but have had no success. Ifconfig eth0 returns: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr: 00:01:2e:3f:f1:a0 inet6 addr: fe80::201:2eff:fe3f:f1a0 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:68 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:183 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:8374 (8.3 KB) TX bytes:42944 (42.9KB) Interrupt:16 Base address:0x6c00 /etc/network/interfaces has auto lo iface lo inef loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp sudo /etc/init.d/networking prints: * Running /etc/init.d/networking restart is deprecated because it may not enable again some interfaces * Reconfiguring network interfaces... Failed to bring up eth0 [OK]

    Read the article

  • Centos does not open port/s after the rule/s are appended

    - by Charlie Dyason
    So after some battling and struggling with the firewall, i see that I may be doing something or the firewall isnt responding correctly there is has a port filter that is blocking certain ports. by the way, I have combed the internet, posted on forums, done almost everything and now hence the website name "serverfault", is my last resort, I need help What I hoped to achieve is create a pptp server to connect to with windows/linux clients UPDATED @ bottom Okay, here is what I did: I made some changes to my iptables file, giving me endless issues and so I restored the iptables.old file contents of iptables.old: # Firewall configuration written by system-config-firewall # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *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 -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT after iptables.old restore(back to stock), nmap scan shows: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 13:54 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.014s latency). Not shown: 997 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 113/tcp closed ident 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 4.95 seconds if I append rule: (to accept all tcp ports incoming to server on interface eth0) iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m tcp -j ACCEPT nmap output: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 13:58 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.017s latency). Not shown: 858 filtered ports, 139 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 443/tcp open https 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.77 seconds *notice it allows and opens port 443 but no other ports, and it removes port 113...? removing previous rule and if I append rule: (allow and open port 80 incoming to server on interface eth0) iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT nmap output: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 14:01 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.014s latency). Not shown: 996 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 80/tcp closed http 113/tcp closed ident 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 5.12 seconds *notice it removes port 443 and allows 80 but is closed without removing previous rule and if I append rule: (allow and open port 1723 incoming to server on interface eth0) iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT nmap output: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 14:05 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.015s latency). Not shown: 996 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 80/tcp closed http 113/tcp closed ident 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 5.16 seconds *notice no change in ports opened or closed??? after removing rules: iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT nmap output: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 14:07 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.015s latency). Not shown: 998 filtered ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 113/tcp closed ident Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 5.15 seconds and returning rule: (to accept all tcp ports incoming to server on interface eth0) iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m tcp -j ACCEPT nmap output: nmap [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 14:07 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.017s latency). Not shown: 858 filtered ports, 139 closed ports PORT STATE SERVICE 22/tcp open ssh 443/tcp open https 8008/tcp open http Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.87 seconds notice the eth0 changes the 999 filtered ports to 858 filtered ports, 139 closed ports QUESTION: why cant I allow and/or open a specific port, eg. I want to allow and open port 443, it doesnt allow it, or even 1723 for pptp, why am I not able to??? sorry for the layout, the editor was give issues (aswell... sigh) UPDATE @Madhatter comment #1 thank you madhatter in my iptables file: # Firewall configuration written by system-config-firewall # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *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 eth0 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # ----------all rules mentioned in post where added here ONLY!!!---------- -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT if I want to allow and open port 1723 (or edit iptables to allow a pptp connection from remote pc), what changes would I make? (please bear with me, my first time working with servers, etc.) Update MadHatter comment #2 iptables -L -n -v --line-numbers Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 9 660 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 2 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 3 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 4 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 5 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:22 6 0 0 REJECT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-host-prohibited Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 0 0 REJECT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-host-prohibited Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 6 packets, 840 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination just on a personal note, madhatter, thank you for the support , I really appreciate it! UPDATE MadHatter comment #3 here are the interfaces ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1D:D8:B7:1F:DC inet addr:[server ip] Bcast:[server ip x.x.x].255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21d:d8ff:feb7:1fdc/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:36692 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4247 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:2830372 (2.6 MiB) TX bytes:427976 (417.9 KiB) 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:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.8.0.1 P-t-P:10.8.0.2 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) remote nmap nmap -p 1723 [server ip] Starting Nmap 6.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 16:17 SAST Nmap scan report for server.address.net ([server ip]) Host is up (0.017s latency). PORT STATE SERVICE 1723/tcp filtered pptp Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.51 seconds local nmap nmap -p 1723 localhost Starting Nmap 5.51 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2013-11-01 16:19 SAST Nmap scan report for localhost (127.0.0.1) Host is up (0.000058s latency). Other addresses for localhost (not scanned): 127.0.0.1 PORT STATE SERVICE 1723/tcp open pptp Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.11 seconds UPDATE MadHatter COMMENT POST #4 I apologize, if there might have been any confusion, i did have the rule appended: (only after 3rd post) iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT netstat -apn|grep -w 1723 tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:1723 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1142/pptpd There are not VPN's and firewalls between the server and "me" UPDATE MadHatter comment #5 So here is an intersting turn of events: I booted into windows 7, created a vpn connection, went through the verfication username & pword - checking the sstp then checking pptp (went through that very quickly which meeans there is no problem), but on teh verfication of username and pword (before registering pc on network), it got stuck, gave this error Connection failed with error 2147943625 The remote computer refused the network connection netstat -apn | grep -w 1723 before connecting: netstat -apn |grep -w 1723 tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:1723 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1137/pptpd after the error came tried again: netstat -apn |grep -w 1723 tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:1723 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1137/pptpd tcp 0 0 41.185.26.238:1723 41.13.212.47:49607 TIME_WAIT - I do not know what it means but seems like there is progress..., any thoughts???

    Read the article

  • My current iptable configuration doesn't work [on hold]

    - by Brad
    sudo chkconfig iptables off /etc/init.d/iptables on ### Clear/flush iptables sudo iptables -F sudo iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT sudo iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT sudo iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT ### Allow SSH iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 22 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT ### Allow YUM updates sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 --match owner --uid-owner 0 --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 443 --match owner --uid-owner 0 --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT ### Add your rules form the link above, here # ftp,smtp,imap,http,https,pop3,imaps,pop3s sudo iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m multiport --dports 21,25,143,80,443,110,993,995 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp -m multiport --sports 21,25,143,80,110,443,993,995 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT ## allow dns sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -p udp -o eth0 --dport 53 -j ACCEPT && sudo iptables -A INPUT -p udp -i eth0 --sport 53 -j ACCEPT # handling pings sudo iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT && sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-reply -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT && sudo iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-reply -j ACCEPT # manage ddos attacks sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -m limit --limit 25/minute --limit-burst 100 -j ACCEPT ## Implement some logging so that we know what's getting dropped sudo iptables -N LOGGING sudo iptables -A INPUT -j LOGGING sudo iptables -A LOGGING -m limit --limit 2/min -j LOG --log-prefix "IPTables Packet Dropped: " --log-level 7 sudo iptables -A LOGGING -j DROP # once a rule affects traffic then it is no longer managed # so if the traffic has not been accepted, block it sudo iptables -A INPUT -j DROP sudo iptables -I INPUT 1 -i lo -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -j DROP # allow only internal port forwarding sudo iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -P FORWARD DROP # create an iptables config file sudo iptables-save > /root/dsl.fw ### Append the following to the rc.local file sudo nano /etc/rc.local ####--- /sbin/iptables-restore < sudo /root/dsl.fw ####--- /etc/init.d/iptables save ## check to see if this setting is working great. sudo service iptables restart ## log out/in testing sudo chkconfig iptables on What is the problem with this setup? If I restart the server it doesn't allow me back in SSH, and there may be a problem with Yum Original source of information: https://gist.github.com/Jonathonbyrd/1274837#file-instructions

    Read the article

  • PortForwarding to IIS in Linux

    - by Simon
    Hi, I am trying to set up port forwarding on a linux box to a IIS webserver on my internal network. The web server sits on Windows 2003 Server. My linux box has eth0 - Internet connection eth1 - internal subnet (10.10.10.x) eth2 - 2nd internal subnet (129.168.0.x) dhcp interface my webserver is on the eth2 interface (192.168.0.6) I am doing port forwarding for port 80 with no avail. I use the same set of rules to port forward to a different webserver and it works. The webapplication is available on the internal network but not for external users. iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 -d $PUBLIC_IP --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.6:80 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -i eth0 -o eth2 -d 192.168.0.6 --dport 80 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -t filter -o eth0 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -t filter -i eth0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE Any Ideas?

    Read the article

  • TPROXY Not working with HAProxy, Ubuntu 14.04

    - by Nyxynyx
    I'm trying to use HAProxy as a fully transparent proxy using TPROXY in Ubuntu 14.04. HAProxy will be setup on the first server with eth1 111.111.250.250 and eth0 10.111.128.134. The single balanced server has eth1 and eth0 as well. eth1 is the public facing network interface while eth0 is for the private network which both servers are in. Problem: I'm able to connect to the balanced server's port 1234 directly (via eth1) but am not able to reach the balanced server via Haproxy port 1234 (which redirects to 1234 via eth0). Am I missing out something in this configuration? On the HAProxy server The current kernel is: Linux extremehash-lb2 3.13.0-24-generic #46-Ubuntu SMP Thu Apr 10 19:11:08 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux The kernel appears to have TPROXY support: # grep TPROXY /boot/config-3.13.0-24-generic CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_TARGET_TPROXY=m HAProxy was compiled with TPROXY support: haproxy -vv HA-Proxy version 1.5.3 2014/07/25 Copyright 2000-2014 Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> Build options : TARGET = linux26 CPU = x86_64 CC = gcc CFLAGS = -g -fno-strict-aliasing OPTIONS = USE_LINUX_TPROXY=1 USE_LIBCRYPT=1 USE_STATIC_PCRE=1 Default settings : maxconn = 2000, bufsize = 16384, maxrewrite = 8192, maxpollevents = 200 Encrypted password support via crypt(3): yes Built without zlib support (USE_ZLIB not set) Compression algorithms supported : identity Built without OpenSSL support (USE_OPENSSL not set) Built with PCRE version : 8.31 2012-07-06 PCRE library supports JIT : no (USE_PCRE_JIT not set) Built with transparent proxy support using: IP_TRANSPARENT IPV6_TRANSPARENT IP_FREEBIND Available polling systems : epoll : pref=300, test result OK poll : pref=200, test result OK select : pref=150, test result OK Total: 3 (3 usable), will use epoll. In /etc/haproxy/haproxy.cfg, I've configured a port to have the following options: listen test1235 :1234 mode tcp option tcplog balance leastconn source 0.0.0.0 usesrc clientip server balanced1 10.111.163.76:1234 check inter 5s rise 2 fall 4 weight 4 On the balanced server In /etc/networking/interfaces I've set the gateway for eth0 to be the HAProxy box 10.111.128.134 and restarted networking. auto eth0 eth1 iface eth0 inet static address 111.111.250.250 netmask 255.255.224.0 gateway 111.131.224.1 dns-nameservers 8.8.4.4 8.8.8.8 209.244.0.3 iface eth1 inet static address 10.111.163.76 netmask 255.255.0.0 gateway 10.111.128.134 ip route gives: default via 111.111.224.1 dev eth0 10.111.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.111.163.76 111.111.224.0/19 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 111.111.250.250

    Read the article

  • Ethernet interface number changed, and old one does not exist, but does not leave IP address

    - by Sagar
    I have a virtual machine with Mandriva 2007.0 (yes, old - unfortunately we do not have a choice here). Anyway, the problem: Before reboot: active network interface = eth0. No other interfaces present, and network manager confirms this. Static IP address set to 172.31.2.22. No issues, everything working properly, routing et al. -------Reboot--------- After reboot: active network interface = eth1, with a DHCP address. Network manager shows eth0 as disconnected, and not connectable. When I try to set eth1 up with the static IP address (same one), it says "In Use". I then tried ifconfig eth0 172.31.2.29 just to free it up from the eth0 interface so I could use it with eth1 (since this is connected). Result: ifconfig eth0 172.31.2.29 SIOCSIFADDR: No such device eth0: unknown interface: No such device Nothing else changed. Any ideas what could be happening, or at least how I can get my IP address back?

    Read the article

  • Server with 3 public IP and iptables

    - by Juan
    I have a linux box with two NIC cards: eth0 and eth1. In one card i have 3 public IP: eth0 = 10.10.10.1, eth0:1= 10.10.10.2 and eth0:2= 10.10.10.3 In the other card i have one local IP eth1 = 192.9.200.1 I want to redirect all the wan traffic for 10.10.10.2 to the LAN 192.9.200.2 and the same for 10.10.10.3 to 192.9.200.3 I have tried with this rule but doesn't work iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -d 10.10.10.2 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.9.200.2 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -d 10.10.10.3 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.9.200.3 IP forward is enabled in /etc/sysctl.conf Can you help me, please.

    Read the article

  • ifconfig ignores alias on IPv6

    - by Marten Lehmann
    When I add an IPv4 address for the interface eth0:0 with ifconfig, it is created correctly: ifconfig eth0:0 add 192.168.10.10 This can be verified by ifconfig or "ip a". When I add an IPv6 address however, ifconfig seems to ignore the alias of the interface: ifconfig eth0:0 add fc00::2/48 The address fc00::2/48 is added to eth0 then, not to eth0:0, no matter if eth0:0 previously exists with an IPv4 address or not. I'm doing this on CentOS 5 but I guess it is a general behaviour of ifconfig? Am I doing something wrong or is this by intention? I'm using separate aliases for interfaces very often and I hoped to use it for IPv6 as well. Kind regards Marten

    Read the article

  • Running bridged-networking vmware player on a Linux machine with 2 interfaces

    - by Roman D
    I have got a laptop running Arch Linux with 2 interfaces: wireless (wlan0) and ethernet (eth0). I use wlan0 to access internet (static IP, networking is configured using netcfg), and I connect a second PC to the eth0. Now, whenever I start vmware player (v. 4.0.4), it chooses wlan0 to connect its bridged virtual NIC to, but I need it to connect to eth0 (I want my guest machine to be able to talk to the second physical PC on eth0). So, I disable the wlan0 interface (netcfg -d wireless) and restart vmware. Now, it connects to eth0, and everything works fine; I can ping the host PC from the virtual one, and I can ping the virtual PC from the second physical PC connected to eth0. Then, if I try to reenable the wlan0 interface (netcfg -u wireless), all of the connectivity between the host and the guest (and between the second physical PC and the guest) gets lost, until I disable wlan0 again. Can someone please give me a hint on what's going on?

    Read the article

  • DHCP server with multiple interfaces on ubuntu, destroys default gateway

    - by Henrik Kjus Alstad
    I use Ubuntu, and I have many interfaces. eth0, which is my internet connection, and it gets its info from a DHCP-server totally outisde of my control. I then have eth1,eth2,eth3 and eth4 which I have created a DHCP-server for.(ISC DHCP-Server) It seems to work, and I even get an IP-address from the foreign DHCP-server on the internet facing interface. However, for some reason it seems my gateway for eth0 became screwed after I installed my local DHCP-server for eth1-eth4. (I think so because I got an IP for eth0, and I can ping other stuff on the local network, but I cannot get access to the internet). My eth0-specific info in /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 10.0.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.0.1.0 broadcast 10.0.1.255 gateway 10.0.1.1 mtu 8192 auto eth2 iface eth2 inet static address 10.0.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.0.2.0 broadcast 10.0.2.255 gateway 10.0.2.1 mtu 8192 My /etc/default/isc-dhcp-server: INTERFACES="eth1 eth2 eth3 eth4" So why does my local DHCP-server fuck up the gateway for eth0, when I tell it not to listen to eth0? Anyone see the problem or what I can do to fix it? The problem seems indeed to be the gateways. "netstat -nr" gives: 0.0.0.0 --- 10.X.X.X ---- 0.0.0.0 --- UG 0 0 0 eth3 It should have been 0.0.0.0 129.2XX.X.X 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 So for some reason, my local DHCP-server overrides the gateway I get from the network DHCP. Edit: dhcp.conf looks like this(I included info only for eth1 subnet): ddns-update-style none; not authoritative; subnet 10.0.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 { interface eth1; option domain-name "example.org"; option domain-name-servers ns1.example.org, ns2.example.org; default-lease-time 600; max-lease-time 7200; range 10.0.1.10 10.0.1.100; host camera1_1 { hardware ethernet 00:30:53:11:24:6E; fixed-address 10.0.1.10; } host camera2_1 { hardware ethernet 00:30:53:10:16:70; fixed-address 10.0.1.11; } } Also, it seems that the gateway is correctly set if I run "/etc/init.d/networking restart" in a terminal, but that's not helpful for me, I need the correct gateway to be set during startup, and i'd rather find the source of the problem

    Read the article

  • Two network interfaces and two IP addresses on the same subnet in Linux

    - by Scott Duckworth
    I recently ran into a situation where I needed two IP addresses on the same subnet assigned to one Linux host so that we could run two SSL/TLS sites. My first approach was to use IP aliasing, e.g. using eth0:0, eth0:1, etc, but our network admins have some fairly strict settings in place for security that squashed this idea: They use DHCP snooping and normally don't allow static IP addresses. Static addressing is accomplished by using static DHCP entries, so the same MAC address always gets the same IP assignment. This feature can be disabled per switchport if you ask and you have a reason for it (thankfully I have a good relationship with the network guys and this isn't hard to do). With the DHCP snooping disabled on the switchport, they had to put in a rule on the switch that said MAC address X is allowed to have IP address Y. Unfortunately this had the side effect of also saying that MAC address X is ONLY allowed to have IP address Y. IP aliasing required that MAC address X was assigned two IP addresses, so this didn't work. There may have been a way around these issues on the switch configuration, but in an attempt to preserve good relations with the network admins I tried to find another way. Having two network interfaces seemed like the next logical step. Thankfully this Linux system is a virtual machine, so I was able to easily add a second network interface (without rebooting, I might add - pretty cool). A few keystrokes later I had two network interfaces up and running and both pulled IP addresses from DHCP. But then the problem came in: the network admins could see (on the switch) the ARP entry for both interfaces, but only the first network interface that I brought up would respond to pings or any sort of TCP or UDP traffic. After lots of digging and poking, here's what I came up with. It seems to work, but it also seems to be a lot of work for something that seems like it should be simple. Any alternate ideas out there? Step 1: Enable ARP filtering on all interfaces: # sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter=1 # echo "net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter = 1" >> /etc/sysctl.conf From the file networking/ip-sysctl.txt in the Linux kernel docs: arp_filter - BOOLEAN 1 - Allows you to have multiple network interfaces on the same subnet, and have the ARPs for each interface be answered based on whether or not the kernel would route a packet from the ARP'd IP out that interface (therefore you must use source based routing for this to work). In other words it allows control of which cards (usually 1) will respond to an arp request. 0 - (default) The kernel can respond to arp requests with addresses from other interfaces. This may seem wrong but it usually makes sense, because it increases the chance of successful communication. IP addresses are owned by the complete host on Linux, not by particular interfaces. Only for more complex setups like load- balancing, does this behaviour cause problems. arp_filter for the interface will be enabled if at least one of conf/{all,interface}/arp_filter is set to TRUE, it will be disabled otherwise Step 2: Implement source-based routing I basically just followed directions from http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html, although that page was written with a different goal in mind (dealing with two ISPs). Assume that the subnet is 10.0.0.0/24, the gateway is 10.0.0.1, the IP address for eth0 is 10.0.0.100, and the IP address for eth1 is 10.0.0.101. Define two new routing tables named eth0 and eth1 in /etc/iproute2/rt_tables: ... top of file omitted ... 1 eth0 2 eth1 Define the routes for these two tables: # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table eth0 # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table eth1 # ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth0 src 10.0.0.100 table eth0 # ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 src 10.0.0.101 table eth1 Define the rules for when to use the new routing tables: # ip rule add from 10.0.0.100 table eth0 # ip rule add from 10.0.0.101 table eth1 The main routing table was already taken care of by DHCP (and it's not even clear that its strictly necessary in this case), but it basically equates to this: # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 dev eth0 # ip route add 130.127.48.0/23 dev eth0 src 10.0.0.100 # ip route add 130.127.48.0/23 dev eth1 src 10.0.0.101 And voila! Everything seems to work just fine. Sending pings to both IP addresses works fine. Sending pings from this system to other systems and forcing the ping to use a specific interface works fine (ping -I eth0 10.0.0.1, ping -I eth1 10.0.0.1). And most importantly, all TCP and UDP traffic to/from either IP address works as expected. So again, my question is: is there a better way to do this? This seems like a lot of work for a seemingly simple problem.

    Read the article

  • How to stop ethernet interface in bridge configuration from obtaining IP address via DHCP

    - by user71061
    Hi! I'm trying to configure openvpn in bridging configuration. First step of doing this requires creating bridge interface (br0), bridging together physical ethernet interface (eth0) and logical tap0 interface. This can be done with simple script but I want to use less popular approach, configuring bridge interface entirely via /etc/network/interfaces file (on Debian linux). So I have removed all eth0 definitions form /etc/network/interfaces and replaced if with following br0 definition: auto br0 iface br0 inet static pre-up openvpn --mktun --dev tap0 address 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 tap0 post-down openvpn --rmtun --dev tap0 This works as I expected, but there is only one problem: interface eth0 is part of bridge interface br0 AND it also receive it's own IP address from my DHCP server (located on same LAN where eth0 is connected). My questions is: how to stop eth0 interface from obtaining it's own IP address? (It should only be part of br0 bridge).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >