iptables -A INPUT -m unclean -j DROP
enabled?
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2001, Trever L. Adams wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 13:07, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> > > I see this too. iptables is refusing packets on locally-initiated TCP
> > > connections when the RELATED,ESTABLISHED rule should be letting them
> > > through.
> > >
> > > I mentioned this problem on the netfilter list but my message fell into
> > > a black hole and was apparently beyond the horizon of the developers.
> > >
> > > -jwb
> >
> > Maybe I misunderstand you, define locally-initiated. Do you mean net or
> > do you mean box? Mine happens on connections made by the firewall
> > (proxy for web) and on other connections initiated internally. We
> > currently only allow identd and a few others from external (identd is
> > spoofed more or less).
>
> I mean connections originating from userland processes running on the
> machine with iptables configured. This machine does not act as a NAT or
> router for any other machine.
>
> We make about 200000 outbound connections to web sites in a day. Of these
> connections, a few thousand get fucked up by iptables (iptables suddenly
> decides to drop packets on this connection).
>
> -jwb
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/