| Subject: |  |  
| From: |  |  
| Reply To: |  |  
| Date: | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:28:49 +0100  |  
| Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN  |  
| Parts/Attachments: | 
 | 
 
 
 | 
 
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Terry_N?= wrote:
> Hi,
> after so many attempts of unsuccessfully restricted and allowed specified
> domain from accessing my vhost, I tried the firewall.  Firewall did not
> work.  Not sure where I messed it up.  See below, port 80, REJECT ip_address
> wasn't working.  That IP address was my laptop:
<snip apache bits...>
> FIREWALL:
>
> *nat
> :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]
> -A POSTROUTING -o eth+ -j MASQUERADE
> COMMIT
> *filter
> :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT
So far so good...
> -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -i eth+ -j ACCEPT
These rule will accept all traffic from lo or any interface with a name 
starting with eth...
> -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.xyz --dport 80 -j REJECT
This attempt to reject the traffic from 192.168.1.xyz to tcp port 80 will 
have no effect if the traffic came from lo or eth+ ...  For this to have 
an effect you probably want to move it above the accepts on eth+ !
> -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -p icmp -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -i lo -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -i eth+ -j ACCEPT
> -A FORWARD -o eth+ -j ACCEPT
> -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
This INPUT rule is out of the *usual* order but quite valid, it will 
reject inbound traffic, but not for anything which has already been dealt 
with, ie anything on an interface not matching lo or eth+ (pppN or bridges 
for example).
> -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
> COMMIT
If you run iptables-save after loading your rules you will see the current 
rules in a format you can easily/quickly load back in.
Using:
   iptables -nvL INPUT
will show usage counts for each rule, which can help catch some errors 
(e.g a rule having 0 uses probably means that all traffic it would match 
is already handled by a rule earlier in the chains)...
  -- Jon
 
 | 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 |