Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Busby <busby@edoceo.com>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: --policy DROP kills everything?
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:59:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <42A8ADA8.5000008@edoceo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506091515190.14790@dgray-test.acs.internap.com>

Damon Gray wrote:
> David,
>     Sorry, but all I can suggest is getting rid of the -i eth0 on the 
> port 22 and port 80 rules because you won't be able to connect from lo0 
> with that. You also don't need the the --state NEW rule for ssh either, 
> your allow anything to port 22 will be enough for that and anything 
> destined for port 22. And also (like someone else suggested) put the 
> --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED at the top. Other than that your rules look 
> correct to me. Is there anything in any of the other tables? Like if you 
> do a iptables -t nat -nvL or -t mangle? What kernel are you running?
> 
> Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
> 
> -Damon-
> 

I appreciate all the help this list is providing, it seems very odd to me and it's nice to know it's also confusing to
others ;)  I've got no other tables, no nat, no mangle (I didn't even build those modules)  I moved EST,REL to the top,
it was last while I was testing.  I'm still at the same state, my established is OK but NEW (tcp/udp) are not.  I'm
using kernel 2.6.10-gentoo-r6, so it's vanilla with gentoo patches.  I've fetched 2.6.11-gentoo-r9 and am currently
building it, I'll try my rules with it.

I also tried getting rid of the interface parameter rules, no help.  I tried getting rid of destination IP rules, no go.
I ended up with this very loose setup

imperium syslog-ng # iptables -nv -L
Chain INPUT (policy DROP 43 packets, 3392 bytes)
  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
     6   312 ACCEPT     all  --  *      *       127.0.0.0/8          0.0.0.0/0
  4067 3419K ACCEPT     all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
     0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:53
     0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:514
     0     0 ACCEPT     udp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           udp dpt:123
     0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:22
     0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           tcp dpt:80
     3   180 ACCEPT     icmp --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0
    43  3392 LOG        all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           LOG flags 0 level 4

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 3270 packets, 277K bytes)
  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination

But I still cannot connect :(  My TCP and UDP traffic is still dead.  Do I need to enable something in /proc?  This
machine isn't forwarding or being a router, the rules are only to protect this single host.  I've unloaded and reloaded
the kernel modules no go.

(time passes)

Rebooted with the 2.6.11-gentoo-r9 kernel, set my firewall rules and presto!
Every thing is working perfectly with the above rules.
I then went through and tied the rules to more be more specific and it's all still working perfect.
Glad that's over, thanks to everyone who helped out!

/djb










  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-06-09 20:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-06-09  3:05 --policy DROP kills everything? Ginter, Jeff A
2005-06-09 11:54 ` busby
2005-06-09  5:04   ` Gary W. Smith
2005-06-09 17:59 ` R. DuFresne
2005-06-09 18:21   ` David Busby
2005-06-09 18:36     ` Damon Gray
     [not found]       ` <42A8909E.1030104@edoceo.com>
     [not found]         ` <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506091515190.14790@dgray-test.acs.internap.com>
2005-06-09 20:59           ` David Busby [this message]
2005-06-09 18:52     ` R. DuFresne
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-06-08 21:11 David Busby
2005-06-08 22:02 ` Rob Sterenborg
2005-06-08 23:32   ` David Busby
2005-06-09  6:26     ` Rob Sterenborg
2005-06-10 18:08       ` Jason Opperisano
2005-06-10 14:48 ` Steven M Campbell

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=42A8ADA8.5000008@edoceo.com \
    --to=busby@edoceo.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