Search Results

Search found 1249 results on 50 pages for 'iptables'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 8/50 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • iptables command

    - by neha soni
    how can i start/stop the iptables service on ubuntu?? i hav tried "service iptables stop" but it is giving "unrecognized service". why is it doing so??? is there any other method???

    Read the article

  • centos iptables, restrict tcp port to specific ips

    - by user788171
    I would like to modify the iptables on my CentOS 5.8 server so that only specific ips can connect to the machine on a specific port. Currently, I have the following in my iptables file: -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 5000 -j ACCEPT How would I modify that line if I wanted to allow access for only ips 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 for instance? (they might not necessarily be sequential ips when I do this for reals).

    Read the article

  • Forwarding udp ports iptables packets "lost"?

    - by Dindihi
    I have a Linux router (Debian 6.x) where i forward some ports to internal services. Some tcp ports (like 80, 22...) are OK. I have one Application listening on port 54277udp. No return is coming from this app, i only get Data on this port. Router: cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter = 1 cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/forwarding = 1 cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ppp0/forwarding = 1 $IPTABLES -t nat -I PREROUTING -p udp -i ppp0 --dport 54277 -j DNAT --to-destination $SRV_IP:54277 $IPTABLES -I FORWARD -p udp -d $SRV_IP --dport 54277 -j ACCEPT Also MASQUERADING internal traffic to ppp0(internet) is active & working. Default Policy INPUT&OUTPUT&FORWARD is DROP What is strange, when i do: tcpdump -p -vvvv -i ppp0 port 54277 I get a lot of traffic: 18:35:43.646133 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 57) source.ip > own.external.ip..54277: [udp sum ok] UDP, length 29 18:35:43.652301 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 57) source.ip > own.external.ip..54277: [udp sum ok] UDP, length 29 18:35:43.653324 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 57) source.ip > own.external.ip..54277: [udp sum ok] UDP, length 29 18:35:43.655795 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 57) source.ip > own.external.ip..54277: [udp sum ok] UDP, length 29 18:35:43.656727 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 57) source.ip > own.external.ip..54277: [udp sum ok] UDP, length 29 18:35:43.659719 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 57, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 57) source.ip > own.external.ip..54277: [udp sum ok] UDP, length 29 tcpdump -p -i eth0 port 54277 (on the same machine, the router) i get much less traffic. also on the destination $SRV_IP there are only a few packets coming in, but not all. INTERNAL SERVER: 19:15:30.039663 IP source.ip.52394 > 192.168.215.4.54277: UDP, length 16 19:15:30.276112 IP source.ip.52394 > 192.168.215.4.54277: UDP, length 16 19:15:30.726048 IP source.ip.52394 > 192.168.215.4.54277: UDP, length 16 So some udp ports are "ignored/dropped" ? Any idea what could be wrong? Edit: This is strange: The Forward rule has data packets, but the PREROUTING rule has 0 packets... iptables -nvL -t filter |grep 54277 Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) 168 8401 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.215.4 state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED udp dpt:54277 iptables -nvL -t nat |grep 54277 Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 405 packets, 24360 bytes) 0 0 DNAT udp -- ppp0 * 0.0.0.0/0 my.external.ip udp dpt:54277 state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED to:192.168.215.4

    Read the article

  • Debugger for Iptables

    - by chris_l
    Hi, I'm looking for an easy way to follow a packet through the iptables rules. This is not so much about logging, because I don't want to log all traffic (and I only want to have LOG targets for very few rules). Something like Wireshark for Iptables. Or maybe even something similar to a debugger for a programming language. Thanks Chris

    Read the article

  • Meaning of iptables filter restriction

    - by Gnanam
    Hi, My server is Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5. I'm not an expert in Linux iptables firewall. After installation, I find the following entries in /etc/sysconfig/iptables. *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT COMMIT What does this iptable filter restriction rule mean?

    Read the article

  • Secure openVPN using IPTABLES

    - by bob franklin smith harriet
    Hey, I setup an openVPN server and it works ok. The next step is to secure it, I opted to use IPTABLES to only allow certain connections through but so far it is not working. I want to enable access to the network behind my openVPN server, and allow other services (web access), when iptables is disabaled or set to allow all this works fine, when using my following rules it does not. also note, I already configured openVPN itself to do what i want and it works fine, its only failing when iptables is started. Any help to tell me why this isnt working will appreciated here. These are the lines that I added in accordance with openVPN's recommendations, unfortunately testing these commands shows that they are requiered, they seem incredibly insecure though, any way to get around using them? # Allow TUN interface connections to OpenVPN server -A INPUT -i tun+ -j ACCEPT #allow TUN interface connections to be forwarded through other interfaces -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT # Allow TAP interface connections to OpenVPN server -A INPUT -i tap+ -j ACCEPT # Allow TAP interface connections to be forwarded through other interfaces -A FORWARD -i tap+ -j ACCEPT These are the new chains and commands i added to restrict access as much as possible unfortunately with these enabled, all that happens is the openVPN connection establishes fine, and then there is no access to the rest of the network behind the openVPN server note I am configuring the main iptables file and I am paranoid so all ports and ip addresses are altered, and -N etc appears before this so ignore that they dont appear. and i added some explanations of what i 'intended' these rules to do, so you dont waste time figuring out where i went wrong : 4 #accepts the vpn over port 1192 -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 1192 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j INPUT-FIREWALL -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT #packets that are to be forwarded from 10.10.1.0 network (all open vpn clients) to the internal network (192.168.5.0) jump to [sic]foward-firewall chain -A FORWARD -s 10.10.1.0/24 -d 192.168.5.0/24 -j FOWARD-FIREWALL #same as above, except for a different internal network -A FORWARD -s 10.10.1.0/24 -d 10.100.5.0/24 -j FOWARD-FIREWALL # reject any not from either of those two ranges -A FORWARD -j REJECT -A INPUT-FIREWALL -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT-FIREWALL -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT-FIREWALL -j REJECT -A FOWARD-FIREWALL -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT #80 443 and 53 are accepted -A FOWARD-FIREWALL -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A FOWARD-FIREWALL -m tcp -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT #192.168.5.150 = openVPN sever -A FOWARD-FIREWALL -m tcp -p tcp -d 192.168.5.150 --dport 53 -j ACCEPT -A FOWARD-FIREWALL -m udp -p udp -d 192.168.5.150 --dport 53 -j ACCEPT -A FOWARD-FIREWALL -j REJECT COMMIT now I wait :D

    Read the article

  • iptables & allowed port refusing connection

    - by marfarma
    Can you see what I'm doing wrong? On Ubuntu Server 9.1, I'm attempting to allow traffic on port 1143 for a non-privileged IMAP host. Connection is refused when testing with telnet example.com 1143 but connection is allowed testing with telnet example.com 80 from my pc to remote internet hosted server. Both rules appear identical and are located near each other with no rules rejecting connections intervening in the rules file. I can't figure it out. iptables -L returns this: Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere 127.0.0.0/8 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:www ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http-alt ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:7070 ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:1143 ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:ssh ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp echo-request LOG all -- anywhere anywhere limit: avg 5/min burst 5 LOG level debug prefix `iptables denied: ' REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere and my rules file contains this: # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Wed May 26 19:08:34 2010 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [3556:217296] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [6909:414847] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [6909:414847] -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8080 -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8080 COMMIT # Completed on Wed May 26 19:08:34 2010 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Wed May 26 19:08:34 2010 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [1:52] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [1:212] -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d 127.0.0.0/8 ! -i lo -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 7070 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1143 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m limit --limit 5/min -j LOG --log-prefix "iptables denied: " --log-level 7 -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT COMMIT # Completed on Wed May 26 19:08:34 2010

    Read the article

  • What's a good (preferably standard) was to restore iptables config in ubuntu 9.10

    - by nixomose
    I never quite got why this isn't some built in setup, although maybe it is and stuff changes so quickly I just missed it. I can use iptables-save to generate something I can feed into iptables-restore, but what I was wondering is if there was a standard place to put it so that it gets picked up on boot without me having to add something to rc.local or the ever changing init/event.d scripts.

    Read the article

  • iptables rule for forwarding outbound traffic

    - by Claudiu
    I am trying to forward the outbound traffic to another server. Current rule is: /sbin/iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -s localhost -o 91.xxx.xxx.xxx --dport 65000:65010 -j ACCEPT but when I do a iptables -L, the rule its showed like this: ACCEPT tcp -- localhost.localdomain anywhere tcp dpts:65000:65010 So I guess my rule is bad written since the "destination" column shows "anywhere" Can you help me with this?

    Read the article

  • How to turn iptables stateless?

    - by tex
    Hi, I'm running a Linux server that - from time to time - faces heavy load and the conntrack table overflows. Since it's iptables firewall ruleset is very simple I'd like to turn it to stateless mode. I know that iptables can operate in stateful connection tracking mode and in a stateless mode. My firewall rules are all in place I'm pretty sure that they are stateless but my question is how can I verify that the firewall is really operating in stateless mode?

    Read the article

  • iptables management utility (character based): Suggestions?

    - by samsmith
    I need IPTables , like everyone else, but I don't use it enough to really keep my knowledge complete and fresh. The setup utility in centos is too basic (doesn't seem to allow me to open up custom ports, just standard ones). Suggestions of a tool or utility to simply iptables management? I looked over APF (http://www.rfxn.com/projects/advanced-policy-firewall/). Is that something that is useful? thanks!

    Read the article

  • missing network usage through iptables

    - by Purres
    I inserted a rule to iptables to track the input usage to a certain ip address. The vps server's IP is 192.168.1.5 and the guest os's IP is 192.168.1.115. I ran 'yum update' inside the guest OS to get some network traffic. Then I ran iptables -vnL from the hypervisor. However it only showed network usage to the host, but not to the guest. Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target source destination 0 0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 destination IP range 192.168.1.115-192.168.1.115 1853 114K 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 destination IP range 192.168.1.5-192.168.1.5 I ran tcpdump and the log showed that there're data packets to the guest os. 16:17:43.932514 IP mirrordenver.fdcservers.net.http > 192.168.1.115.34471: Flags [.], seq 17694667:17696115, ack 1345, win 113, options [nop,nop,TS val 1060308643 ecr 1958781], length 1448 16:17:43.932559 IP 192.168.1.115.34471 > mirrordenver.fdcservers.net.http: Flags [.], ack 17696115, win 15287, options [nop,nop,TS val 1958869 ecr 1060308643], length 0 Why the guest OS network usage couldn't be tracked? iptables -L will return the INPUT chain as following: Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination all -- anywhere anywhere destination IP range 192.168.1.115-192.168.1.115 all -- anywhere anywhere destination IP range 192.168.1.5-192.168.1.5 all -- anywhere anywhere

    Read the article

  • Redirect local, not internal, requests using SuSEfirewall2 or an iptables rule

    - by James
    I have a server that is running a web application deployed on Tomcat and is sitting in a test network. We're running SuSE 11 sp1 and have some redirection rules for incoming requests. For example we don't bind port 80 in Tomcat's server.xml file, instead we listen on port 9600 and have a configuration line in SuSEfirewall2 to redirect port 80 to 9640. This is because Tomcat doesn't run as root and can't open up port 80. My web application needs to be able to make requests to port 80 since that is the port it will be using when deployed. What rule can I add so that local requests get redirected by iptables? I tried looking at this question: How do I redirect one port to another on a local computer using iptables? but suggestions there didn't seem to help me. I tried running tcpdump on eth0 and then connecting to my local IP address (not 127.0.0.1, but the actual address) but I didn't see any activity. I did see activity if I connected from an external machine. Then I ran tcmpdump on lo, again tried to connect and this time I saw activity. So this leads me to believe that any requests made to my own IP address locally aren't getting handled by iptables. Just for reference he's what my NAT table looks like now: Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http redir ports 9640 REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:xfer redir ports 9640 REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https redir ports 8443 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination

    Read the article

  • iptables, blocking large numbers of IP Addresses

    - by Twirrim
    I'm looking to block IP addresses in a relatively automated fashion if they look to be 'screen scraping' content from websites that we host. In the past this was achieved by some ingenious perl scripts and OpenBSD's pf. pf is great in that you can provide it nice tables of IP addresses and it will efficiently handle blocking based on them. However for various reasons (before my time) they made the decision to switch to CentOS. iptables doesn't natively provide the ability to block large numbers of addresses (I'm told it wasn't unusual to be blocking 5000+), and I'm a bit cautious over adding that many rules into an iptable. ipt_recent would be awesome for doing this, plus it provides a lot of flexibility for just severely slowing down access, but there is a bug in the CentOS kernel that is stopping me from using it (reported, but awaiting fix). Using ipset would entail compiling a more up-to-date version of iptables than comes with CentOS which whilst I'm perfectly capable of doing it, I'd rather not do from a patching, security and consistency perspective. Other than those two it looks like nfblock is a reasonable alternative. Is anyone aware of other ways of achieving this? Are my concerns about several thousand IP addresses in iptables as individual rules unfounded?

    Read the article

  • Translating IPTables rule to UFW

    - by Dario Fumagalli
    we are using an Ubuntu 12.04 x64 LTS VPS. Firewall being used is UFW. I have setup a Varnish + LEMP setup. along with other things, including an Openswan IPSEC VPN from our office to the VPS data center. A second in house Ubuntu box is to act as MySQL slave and fetch data from the VPS through the VPN. Master's ppp0 is seen as 10.1.2.1 from the slave, they ping etc. I have done the various required tasks but I can't get the client (slave) MySQL (nor telnet 10.1.2.1 3306) to access the master through the VPN unless I issue this fairly obvious IPTables command: iptables -A INPUT -s 10.1.2.0/24 -p tcp --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT I willingly forced the accepted input to come from the last octet. With this rule everything works just fine! However I want to translate this command to UFW syntax so to keep everything in one place. Now I admit being inexperienced with UFW, I prepared rules like: ufw allow proto tcp from 10.1.2.0/24 port mysql and 2-3 variations involving specifying 3306 instead of mysql, specifying a target IP (MySQL's my.cnf at the moment is configured as 0.0.0.0) and similar but I just don't seem to be able to replicate the simple iptables rule in a functional way. Anyone could kindly give me a suggestion that is not to dump UFW? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • IPtables: DNAT not working

    - by GetFree
    In a CentOS server I have, I want to forward port 8080 to a third-party webserver. So I added this rule: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination thirdparty_server_ip:80 But it doesn't seem to work. In an effort to debug the process, I added these two LOG rules: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --src my_laptop_ip --dport ! 22 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "[_REQUEST_COMING_FROM_CLIENT_] " iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dst thirdparty_server_ip -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "[_REQUEST_BEING_FORWARDED_] " (the --dport ! 22 part is there just to filter out the SSH traffic so that my log file doesn't get flooded) According to this page the mangle/PREROUTING chain is the first one to process incomming packets and the nat/POSTROUTING chain is the last one to process outgoing packets. And since the nat/PREROUTING chain comes in the middle of the other two, the three rules should do this: the rule in mangle/PREROUTING logs the incomming packets the rule in nat/PREROUTING modifies the packets (it changes the dest IP and port) the rule in nat/POSTROUTING logs the modified packets about to be forwarded Although the first rule does log incomming packets comming from my laptop, the third rule doesn't log the packets which are supposed to be modified by the second rule. It does log, however, packets that are produced in the server, hence I know the two LOG rules are working properly. Why are the packets not being forwarded, or at least why are they not being logged by the third rule? PS: there are no more rules than those three. All other chains in all tables are empty and with policy ACCEPT.

    Read the article

  • TCPDump and IPTables DROP by string

    - by Tiffany Walker
    by using tcpdump -nlASX -s 0 -vvv port 80 I get something like: 14:58:55.121160 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 49764, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP (6), length 1480) 206.72.206.58.http > 2.187.196.7.4624: Flags [.], cksum 0x6900 (incorrect -> 0xcd18), seq 1672149449:1672150889, ack 4202197968, win 15340, length 1440 0x0000: 4500 05c8 c264 4000 4006 0f86 ce48 ce3a E....d@[email protected].: 0x0010: 02bb c407 0050 1210 63aa f9c9 fa78 73d0 .....P..c....xs. 0x0020: 5010 3bec 6900 0000 0f29 95cc fac4 2854 P.;.i....)....(T 0x0030: c0e7 3384 e89a 74fa 8d8c a069 f93f fc40 ..3...t....i.?.@ 0x0040: 1561 af61 1cf3 0d9c 3460 aa23 0b54 aac0 .a.a....4`.#.T.. 0x0050: 5090 ced1 b7bf 8857 c476 e1c0 8814 81ed P......W.v...... 0x0060: 9e85 87e8 d693 b637 bd3a 56ef c5fa 77e8 .......7.:V...w. 0x0070: 3035 743a 283e 89c7 ced8 c7c1 cff9 6ca3 05t:(>........l. 0x0080: 5f3f 0162 ebf1 419e c410 7180 7cd0 29e1 _?.b..A...q.|.). 0x0090: fec9 c708 0f01 9b2f a96b 20fe b95a 31cf ......./.k...Z1. 0x00a0: 8166 3612 bac9 4e8d 7087 4974 0063 1270 .f6...N.p.It.c.p What do I pull to use IPTables to block via string. Or is there a better way to block attacks that have something in common? Question is: Can I pick any piece from that IP packet and call it a string? iptables -A INPUT -m string --alog bm --string attack_string -j DROP In other words: In some cases I can ban with TTL=xxx and use that should an attack have the same TTL. Sure it will block some legit packets but if it means keeping the box up it works till the attack goes away but I would like to LEARN how to FIND other common things in a packet to block with IPTables

    Read the article

  • iptables, blocking large numbers of IP Addresses

    - by Twirrim
    I'm looking to block IP addresses in a relatively automated fashion if they look to be 'screen scraping' content from websites that we host. In the past this was achieved by some ingenious perl scripts and OpenBSD's pf. pf is great in that you can provide it nice tables of IP addresses and it will efficiently handle blocking based on them. However for various reasons (before my time) they made the decision to switch to CentOS. iptables doesn't natively provide the ability to block large numbers of addresses (I'm told it wasn't unusual to be blocking 5000+), and I'm a bit cautious over adding that many rules into an iptable. ipt_recent would be awesome for doing this, plus it provides a lot of flexibility for just severely slowing down access, but there is a bug in the CentOS kernel that is stopping me from using it (reported, but awaiting fix). Using ipset would entail compiling a more up-to-date version of iptables than comes with CentOS which whilst I'm perfectly capable of doing it, I'd rather not do from a patching, security and consistency perspective. Other than those two it looks like nfblock is a reasonable alternative. Is anyone aware of other ways of achieving this? Are my concerns about several thousand IP addresses in iptables as individual rules unfounded?

    Read the article

  • NAT via iptables and virtual interface

    - by Alex
    I'm trying to implement the following scenario: One VM-host, multiple guest VMs, each one gets its own IP-address (and domain). Our server has only one physical interface, so the intended use is to add virtual interfaces on eth0. To complicate our situation the provider uses port-security on their switches, so I can't run the guest interfaces in bridged mode, because then the switch detects a "spoofed" MAC-address and kills the interface (permanently, forcing me to call the support, which I'm sure will get them a little bit angry the third time ;) ). My first guess was to use iptables and NAT to forward all packages from one virtual interface to another one, but iptables doesn't seem to like virtual interfaces (at least I can't get it to work properly). So my second guess is to use the source IP of the packages to the public interface. Let's assume libvirt creates a virbr0-network with 192.168.100.0/24 and the guest uses 192.168.100.2 as IP-address. This is what I tried to use: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --src public_ip_on_eth0:0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.100.2:80 That doesn't give me the intended results either (accessing the server times out). Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do, or even to route all traffic to a certain IP on a virtual interface to the VM's device?

    Read the article

  • Variable host IP address in iptables rule

    - by DrakeES
    I am running CentOS 6.4 with OpenVZ on my laptop. In order to provide Internet access for the VEs I have to apply the following rule on the laptop: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT --to-source <LAPTOP_IP> It works fine. However, I have to work in different places - office, home, partner's office etc. The IP of my laptop is different in those places, so have to alter the rule above each time I change place. I have created a workaround which basically determines the IP and applies the rule: #!/bin/bash IP=$(ifconfig | awk -F':' '/inet addr/&&!/127.0.0.1/{split($2,_," ");print _[1]}') iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT --to-source $IP The workaround above works. I only still have to execute it manually. Perhaps I could make it a hook executing whenever my laptop obtains an IP address from DHCP - how can I do that? Also, I am just wondering if there is an elegant way of getting it done in the first place - iptables? Maybe there is a syntax allowing to specify "current hardware ip addres" in the rule?

    Read the article

  • Why not block ICMP?

    - by Agvorth
    I think I almost have my iptables setup complete on my CentOS 5.3 system. Here is my script... # Establish a clean slate iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -F # Flush all rules iptables -X # Delete all chains # Disable routing. Drop packets if they reach the end of the chain. iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Drop all packets with a bad state iptables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # Accept any packets that have something to do with ones we've sent on outbound iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Accept any packets coming or going on localhost (this can be very important) iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Accept ICMP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT # Allow ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow httpd iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSL iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP For context, this machine is a Virtual Private Server Web app host. In a previous question, Lee B said that I should "lock down ICMP a bit more." Why not just block it altogether? What would happen if I did that (what bad thing would happen)? If I need to not block ICMP, how could I go about locking it down more?

    Read the article

  • iptables is not allowing me to contact my dns nameservers

    - by user1272737
    I have the follwing iptables rules: Chain INPUT (policy DROP) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ssh ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https ACCEPT tcp -- localhost.localdomain anywhere tcp dpt:mysql ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:14443 ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ftp ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ftp-data ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:xxxxxxx Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination When I turn off iptables I am able to use wget and all other commands. When these rules are enabled I cannot connect to any address. Any idea why this would be?

    Read the article

  • iptables openvpn forward selectively from eth to tun

    - by Bryan Hunt
    Simple for those who know, indecipherable for those who don't... I'm running openVPN on (hypothetical) 66.66.66.66, I want to FORWARD incoming traffic, arriving on interface eth0 to interface tun0. It would also be nice to filter - based on destination IP address. I'm doing the NAT later on, but like to lock down early wherever possible. So onto the main course... This works: #Enable forwarding from eth0 to tun0 iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o tun+ -j ACCEPT But this doesn't pass any packets whatsoever: #Stricter version iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o tun+ --dst 66.66.66.66 -j ACCEPT Am I being unacceptably foolish?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >