Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Bastille/netfilter with Linux 2.6.28 blocks connections

DISCUSSION Roland Häder 2 participants 2 messages Jan 5, 2009 – Jan 7, 2009

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines

Not right that "both" have the default gw to 192.168.1.1 Only the clients on 192.168.1.0/24 have to. The router (the server where you are writing the iptables rules) need another gw!

Yes, I have your mentioned setup here: clients have 192.168.1.1 as gateway and 192.168.1.1 has the PPP partner as its gateway.

Quoted 8 lines

Try
IP -F -t nat
IP -F FORWARD
IP -A FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
IP -A FORWARD -i eth1 -m state --state NEW -j LOG --log-prefix "NEW FW" IP -A FORWARD -i eth1 -j ACCEPT
IP -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -m state --state NEW -j LOG --log-prefix "NEW POR" IP -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE

I suppose I should not replace my _whole_ ruleset but a small part? Else these rules will be a little less secure.

And currently my firewall got attacked on port 110 which is (sadly!) reachable on all NICs.

So where should I add/replace your rules?

Quoted 5 lines

For this into the above iptables.list there are no rules! IP -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 30017 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.17

and add the forward one

I have a similar one already and as I said, it worked before like a sharm. :)

So the "bug" must be someone else. Okay, I put all in /etc/Bastille in a ZIP and try it from a fresh installation. Then I put my custom firewall.d back in place step-by-step.

If that is still failing I try yours but shut down a lot processes on my box. I hate that my box got hacked by some script-kiddie or spammer .... :(

I will add "netstat -lnp" soon!

Quoted 1 line

I don't know about this....

Okay, never mind. :)

Quoted 1 line

Michele

Roland
__________________________________________________________________
Deutschlands größte Online-Videothek schenkt Ihnen 12.000 Videos!*
http://entertainment.web.de/de/entertainment/maxdome/index.html

#1 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · Roland Häder

I suppose I should not replace my _whole_ ruleset but a small part? Else these rules will be a little less secure.

Those replace only the forward one and add some debug. Of course, at the end of tests, you'll modify and replace your rules with mine :)

Quoted 3 lines

And currently my firewall got attacked on port 110 which is (sadly!) reachable on all NICs.

IP -I INPUT -m state --state NEW -p tcp --dport 110 -j ACCEPT

Quoted 2 lines

So where should I add/replace your rules?

For test, into a "running" env, so after yours.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines

For this into the above iptables.list there are no rules! IP -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 30017 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.17

and add the forward one

I have a similar one already and as I said, it worked before like a sharm. :)

Strange. Start with a "rule clean" and recreate the only one that do the work you want. Make them work and after, and only after, start to debug

Bye