From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_Harmuth?= Subject: Re: iptables rules Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:26:56 +0200 Message-ID: <432992C0.2000404@mnemon.de> References: <1123184190.21749.34.camel@ndspc131.p.n-dsi.com> <1123704837.3708.1.camel@ndspc131.p.n-dsi.com> <1126649450.4790.5.camel@ndspc131.p.n-dsi.com> <1126797736.4790.24.camel@ndspc131.p.n-dsi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1126797736.4790.24.camel@ndspc131.p.n-dsi.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Peggy Kam wrote: > Hi, > > I have defined the following firewall rule in iptables: > > iptables -I FORWARD -s 192.168.22.102 -d 192.168.1.112 -p tcp -m tcp -m > multiport --ports 22,23,24,25 -j ACCEPT > > why were the packets able to get to 192.168.1.112 on port 22 when the > packets does not even come from ports 22,23,24 or 25? man iptables: --ports [!] port[,port[,port:port...]] Match if either the source or destination ports are equal to one of the given ports. So, this is expected behaviour, provided that there are no other rules in the way. HTH, Joerg