From: "David H. Askew" <daskew2@kc.rr.com>
To: netfilter users mailing list <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Subject: RE: firewall host problem
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:01:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1066618897.2317.11.camel@lappy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1147.192.168.111.123.1066615354.squirrel@mail.linknet-solutions.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4093 bytes --]
This is the line I added .. thank you for your suggestion anyway
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 21:02, Josh Berry wrote:
> You are only allowing port 22 for input, you have to allow related traffic
> back. Something like:
>
> iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -i <input interface> -m state --state
> ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>
>
> > I thought about that too.. but
> >
> > This output seems to indicate a default policy of ACCEPT on the output
> > chain. I've not yet formulated a set of rules to handle outbound
> > traffic.
> >
> > iptables -L .. partial output ...
> >
> > Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> > target prot opt source destination
> >
> > or .. am I missing your point ?
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 20:44, Mark E. Donaldson wrote:
> >> David - Where are your OUTPUT chain Rules? If you want to ping (or
> >> anything
> >> else) your ISP gateway from the firewall itself, you need rules in your
> >> OUTPUT chain to permit this. If your OUTPUT default policy is set to
> >> DROP,
> >> then all packets generated by your firewall are being dropped.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David H. Askew [mailto:daskew2@kc.rr.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 2:44 PM
> >> To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
> >> Subject: firewall host problem
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ok .. so 'I'm trying to setup my first iptables firewall .. and I've got
> >> a semi functional setup so far ... but I do have one small problem .. my
> >> firewall machine .. which is performing NAT for my home network.. cannot
> >> access the Internet with any standard tools ... tracepath .. ping ..
> >> etc. I know network connectivity is fine .. because my internal
> >> machines function properly.
> >>
> >> My router/firewall has 3 interfaces ....
> >> eth0: ISP
> >> eth1: Home Subnet 1
> >> eth2: Home Subnet 2
> >>
> >> eth2 can ping my ISP gateway
> >> eth1 can ping my ISP gateway
> >> eth0 can not ping my ISP gateway
> >>
> >>
> >> my firewall script is below ...
> >>
> >> I've recently switched from an ACCEPT default policy to the DROP default
> >> policy below. I didn't have this problem previously, so I know i'I've
> >> just forgotten to allow something .. but I'm having trouble coming to a
> >> logical conclusion ....
> >>
> >> ...any help .. critique ... advice you could provide would be helpful
> >>
> >> -dave
> >>
> >>
> >> iptables --flush
> >> iptables --table nat --flush
> >> iptables --delete-chain
> >> iptables --table nat --delete-chain
> >>
> >>
> >> # Enable packet forwarding in the kernel
> >> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> >>
> >> # Setup IP FORWARDing and Masquerading
> >> iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j
> >> MASQUERADE
> >> iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface eth1 -j ACCEPT
> >> iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface eth2 -j ACCEPT
> >>
> >>
> >> #enable connection tracking
> >> iptables -I FORWARD -m state --state INVALID -j DROP
> >> iptables -I FORWARD -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
> >>
> >> iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -i eth0 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
> >> iptables -A INPUT -p udp -i eth0 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
> >>
> >> iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -i eth2 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
> >> iptables -A INPUT -p udp -i eth2 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
> >>
> >> iptables -P INPUT DROP
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb ?
> >>
> >> Answer : None, they just declare darkness a new standard.
> >>
> > --
> > How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb ?
> >
> > Answer : None, they just declare darkness a new standard.
> >
> >
>
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Berry, CTO
> LinkNet-Solutions
> 469-831-8543
> josh.berry@linknet-solutions.com
--
How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb ?
Answer : None, they just declare darkness a new standard.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-10-20 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-19 21:44 firewall host problem David H. Askew
2003-10-20 1:44 ` Mark E. Donaldson
2003-10-20 1:49 ` David H. Askew
2003-10-20 2:02 ` Josh Berry
2003-10-20 3:01 ` David H. Askew [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1066618897.2317.11.camel@lappy \
--to=daskew2@kc.rr.com \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox