On this page:
http://www.shorewall.net/manpages/shorewall.html
it provides information on the SHOREWALL_COMPILER (SHOREWALL_COMPILER in
shorewall.conf(5).). Clicking this link takes you to:
http://www.shorewall.net/manpages/shorewall.conf.html
However there's no information on the
Using:
shorewall-perl-4.0.1-2
shorewall-4.0.1-2
I have tried everything that I can think of to stop shorewall from puking to
the console. I get dozens if not hundreds of these directed to the console:
Aug 6 07:34:13 backup kernel: Shorewall:net2all:DROP:IN=eth0 OUT=
as
to why only Shorewall. I still can't figure it out. I thought that possibly
Shorewall was sending this as critical and that's why it was seen on the
console.
Anyway I'm sorry to have said something that I shouldn't have. I'll try to
track down the problem myself.
Regards,
John
J and T
for your time and wonderful firewall,
John
J and T wrote:
I didn't mean to offend you Tom by saying Shorewall was puking on my
console.
John,
No offense was taken. I just wanted it to be clear, both to you and to
future readers of this thread, that control of logging is outside
. But as
soon as I go back to the server room, Shorewall messages are scattered on
the server's console (login prompt).
It's weired don't you think? Since it's a test box I'll send everything to
/dev/null and see what happens.
Thanks again,
John
J and T wrote:
Thanks for the reply Tom. All mine show
and remote login On
Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 12:35:29PM -0700, J and T wrote: I'm not really sure
how to ask this question so I'll just give you some details of my system and
Shorewall configuration. Tom has already answered your question, so I will
simply say: please don't thread hijack. Regards
? J and T wrote:
Any help on how to just turn off logging would be appreciated. As explained
at http://www.shorewall.net/shorewall_logging.html#Log, there are five
different ways in which packets can get logged. So the key to stopping
unwanted logging is to identify in which of the five ways
+ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] How to shut down logging? On 10/15/07, J and T
wrote: I already had the policy logging set to: net all DROP err all
all REJECT err I thought it would only log errors. Do I instead need to
set
I updated CentOS (2.6.18-53.1.19.el5) to CentOS (2.6.18-92.1.18.el5) along with
a bunch of other updates.
Shorewall used:
shorewall-4.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
shorewall-perl-4.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
After updating CentOS and starting Shorewall, this is the error returned:
Starting shorewall: Errno
update
J and T wrote:
I updated CentOS (2.6.18-53.1.19.el5) to CentOS (2.6.18-92.1.18.el5)
along with a bunch of other updates.
Shorewall used:
shorewall-4.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
shorewall-perl-4.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
After updating CentOS and starting Shorewall, this is the error
shorewall work when I rename
Errno.pm to Errno.pm.OLD?
Thanks.
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:56:24 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall fails after CentOS update
J and T wrote:
I updated CentOS (2.6.18-53.1.19.el5
@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall fails after CentOS update
J and T wrote:
I updated CentOS (2.6.18-53.1.19.el5) to CentOS (2.6.18-92.1.18.el5)
along with a bunch of other updates.
Shorewall used:
shorewall-4.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
shorewall-perl-4.0.1-2.noarch.rpm
Nov 2008 14:56:40 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall fails after CentOS update
J and T wrote:
Anyway, Shorewall is working now that I have renamed
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm to
/usr/lib/perl5
Our website delivers more than 100 million page vies each month and with this
popularity comes a lot of attacks. We've done fairly well using shorewall to
help keep this under control. In fact, the only open port is port 80 on these
machines.
Lately there appears to be worms being
I want to thank everyone for all their suggestions. Everything has been of help
to me.
With this said, you'll notice that all requests result in a 302 because I
detect them first and redirect them so I have already captured their IP. So
what I decided to do for now is instead of redirecting,
15 matches
Mail list logo
