I'm using iptables 1.4.21 with xtables-addons to block IPs per country.
Now I want to exclude one or more IPs from blocked country but can't..
I tried
iptables -A INPUT -s xxxxxx -j ACCEPT
but don't work
is it possible to exclude IPs when using "-m geoip --src-cc" ?
OK.. I found I needed to INSERT instead of APPENDING
iptables -I INPUT -s xxxxxxxx -j ACCEPT
Related
here is my whitelist allowing wikipedia and rejecting all other sites. Unfortunately this script does not work : I cannot connect to wikipedia. Why ?
Thank you
Allow incoming traffic from established connections.
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
Allow incoming connections from wikipedia
iptables -A INPUT -s 78.109.84.114 -j ACCEPT
Allow outcoming connections from wikipedia
iptables -A OUTPUT -s 78.109.84.114 -j ACCEPT
Drop other incoming connections.
iptables -P INPUT DROP
Drop any transfer of traffic.
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
I think i got your Problem.
Try using iptables -A OUTPUT -d 78.109.84.114 -j ACCEPT instead of
iptables -A OUTPUT -s 78.109.84.114 -j ACCEPT
And if you want to work with the state module then use:
iptables -A OUTPUT -m state --state NEW -d 78.109.84.114 -j ACCEPT
The Problem is, that you create a rule, that says that Traffic that goes into the OUTPUT Chain with the Source Adress 78.109.84.114 is allowed. But what you want is a rule that allows Traffic to Wikipedia outgoing not from Wikipedia.
I can set iptables rules to prevent external connection. But can we use iptables to prevent internal connection? For example, I have set iptables to prevent port 5555 port on my machine, but my local APP can still connect with 5555 when running on my machine.
Yes you can block it using iptables.
iptables -A INPUT -d 127.0.0.1 -p tcp --dport 5555 -j DROP
With this command you'll not be able to connect from your own host to your own service. Then you can remove the rule using the opposite to -A append which is -D delete:
iptables -D INPUT -d 127.0.0.1 -p tcp --dport 5555 -j DROP
Hope it helps.
Depends upon how you are blocking the port 5555, if you have a specific INPUT rule with interface and source and/or destination addresses it would match only those. In your case, you could modify your rule to just match tcp destination port 5555 and it will block all packets to tcp destination port 5555. for eg:
iptables -t filter -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 5555 -j DROP
If you just want to block your internal apps and not touch your existing iptables rule then use the incoming interface as lo for eg:
iptables -t filter -I INPUT -i lo -p tcp --dport 5555 -j DROP
Note: If you are using destination ip then use the entire loopback address range rather than just 127.0.0.1 for eg:
iptables -t filter -I INPUT -d 127.0.0.0/8 -p tcp --dport 5555 -j DROP
Before you do any changes you can instead of -j DROP action use -j LOG action to log and confirm the tcp connections this rule will match. You could also skip the action part without specifying the -j option and check how many packets would match your rule with iptables -t filter -L -n -v without causing any harm.
I have 2 kinds of proxies in my local machine : stunnel and TOR-VPN.
stunnel is listening on port 6666
TOR-VPN is listening on port 9040
I want to get web traffic to go to stunnel first and the output traffic of stunnel go to tor-vpn. This needs double redirecting. is it possible to do it with iptables? I mean by using "table nat chain OUTPUT".
Because as far as I know "table nat chain OUTPUT" cant be called twice.
web traffic = browser listening on 127.0.0.1:6666
these are my rules:
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp -j REDIRECT --to-ports 6666
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m tcp -j
REDIRECT --to-ports 9040
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m udp
--dport 53 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 53
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 6666 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m tcp
--dport 9040 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p udp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m udp
--dport 53 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner bob -j DROP
the above rules make stunnel work independently from TOR/VPN.
i mean when browser is set with proxy, no traffic will go through TOR/VPN but if i turn off the proxy in browser, all traffic will go through TOR/VPN.
now i want to let browser have the proxy on and all web traffic go to stunnel first, but outgoing stunnel traffic(outgoing loopback traffic) redirects to TOR/VPN(127.0.0.1:9040)
is it possible ? how can i do that? somehow i mean double redirecting inside system.
Policy of all tables is ACCEPT
Checking that this is what you mean :
You have stunnel bound to port 6666 (localhost:6666) and you have tor bound to 9040 (localhost:9040). You want it so your web traffic will go THROUGH stunnel (so destination is localhost:6666) but the OUTBOUND traffic FROM stunnel (with inbound traffic originally from your client redirected to stunnel) should be DESTINED to tor (localhost:9040) ? Is this correct ?
If so, and I am thinking clearly enough (it is just 7:00 and I've been awake far too many hours for a difficult night), this is indeed possible (the reverse is, too). You need to masquerade the destination address (and indeed port) based on the source (address and port (you don't have to specify both, I might add)). Something like this:
iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --sport 6666 -j DNAT --to-destination 9040
If this is not what you mean (or alternatively I made a typo, am not clear headed or being an idiot in some way (in all cases showing myself to be a user as everyone is!), if any it is probably the latter) then please respond. I'll see about enabling email notification so that I see the response. If I don't, however, I apologise in advance.
As an aside: unless you have a final rule in each CHAIN (not table, just as an fyi: a table is filter, nat (which I specify in the above and indeed it is necessary), etc. and CHAIN is INPUT, OUTPUT, FORWARD and others created by the option -N) you shouldn't have -P ACCEPT ('that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden' and similar wording - i.e. have DROP). The exception is perhaps OUTPUT (but depends on what you need, in the end). However, when dealing with interface 'lo' you'll want to ACCEPT all traffic always, in any case (i.e. specify -i lo and -o lo, depending on chain, and jump to ACCEPT). Of course, maybe you're behind another device but still best practise to not accept anything and everything! (I should also state that you have different chains per table so yes you can specify different tables but the policy is for the chain IN that table)
Edit: something else: no, you don't have to deal with SNAT when you want DNAT and the reverse is true. Anything to the contrary is a misunderstanding. The reason is you're masquerading the CONNECTION. As the man page shows:
It specifies that the destination address of the
packet should be modified (and all future packets in this connection will also be mangled), and rules should cease being examined.
Edit:
If I understand you (now) you actually have two interfaces involved. Or more specifically you need the following:
You have a service you want encrypted. This is tor. Now, you're using stunnel to do this. To this end you want stunnel to forward traffic to tor. Is this right? If yes, then know that stunnel has the following directives (I actually use similar for something else). Here's a mock setup of a service.
[tor]
accept = 6666
connect = 9040
In addition, just as a note: connect can also be a remote address (remote address implies an external address (with port) or even a certain interface (by IP and also with port) on the system (I use external in the sense of you specify ip and port rather than just a port). Furthermore, accept can specify address (with same rules: ip before the port (except that it is obviously on the local machine so no external IP)). You could explain it, perhaps, as stunnel is where the service would bind to except that the service is stunnel and the service it is encrypting is elsewhere (shortly: the bind(2) call allows specific IP or all IPs on the system, and you're basically configuring stunnel to do this).
(And yes, you're right: the sport should have been dport.)
IF this is not what you need then I do not understand all variables. In that case, if you can elaborate on which interfaces (this includes ports and which service per interface) are involved as well as clients involved (and where they send). Because it is a lot more helpful if others know EXACTLY what you need than infer certain parts. Makes it much easier to solve a problem if you know what the problem is entirely. Maybe I've been dense and I should put together it all (and I admit sleep problems - which I have for a long, long time - does not help that, but...) I haven't, I think.
I found the answer by myself. in my first post, i said something that was completely wrong and because of that, i could not do double redirecting.
i said:
Because as far as I know "table nat chain OUTPUT" cant be called twice
it is wrong and "table nat chain OUTPUT" can be called twice. i dont know what exactly i did 2 months ago that thought "table nat chain OUTPUT" cant be called twice.
this is the tables and chains order when using some services on loopback interface or not:
Without having any services on loopback:
Generated packets on local machine -> nat(OUTPUT) -> filter(OUTPUT) -> wlan(ethernet) interface
With having some services on loopback:
Generated packets on local machine -> nat(OUTPUT) -> filter(OUTPUT) -> loopback interface -> nat(OUTPUT) -> filter(OUTPUT) -> wlan(ethernet) interface
these are my rules to solve the problem:
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 6666 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 6666
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m tcp -j REDIRECT --to-ports 9040
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m udp --dport 53 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 53
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d "StunnelServerIp" -o wlan0 -p tcp -j REDIRECT --to-ports 9040
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m tcp --dport 9040 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p udp -m owner --uid-owner bob -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 6666 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner bob -j DROP
I can't access Plesk Amdin because of DOS attack; can I block a hostname or IP address through SSH? If so, how would I be able to do this?
Thank you!
If you have iptables you can block it using simple rule:
iptables -I INPUT --source 1.2.3.4 -j DROP
This rule drops packets coming from IP 1.2.3.4.
Probably the easiest is to SSH to your box use vim to and add the following to the top of your .htaccess file in the root of your domain (/var/www/vhosts/yourdomain.com/httpdocs/.htaccess):
deny from 12.345.67.89
Obviously replace the IP address with the one you want to block. Repeat this for any sites you think are being attacked.
iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -s 1.2.3.4 -m statistic --probability 0.5 -j DROP
iptables -I INPUT n -p tcp -s 1.2.3.4 -m rpfilter --loose -j ACCEPT # n would be an numeric index into the INPUT CHAIN -- default is append to INPUT chain
iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m hashlimit --hashlimit-mode srcip -s 1.2.3.4 --hashlimit-srcmask --hashlimit-above 9/second -j DROP
iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -s 1.2.3.4 -m limit --sport 80 --limit 100/second -j ACCEPT
There are countless others for your circumstances.
Sincerely,
ArrowInTree
how do I drop all traffic to smtp, except originating from my IP? This example I found drops traffic for particular IP, I need to deny by default, but allow 1 IP in. Thanks
# iptables -A INPUT -s 65.55.44.100 -p tcp --destination-port 25 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -s ! 65.55.44.100 -p tcp --destination-port 25 -j DROP
# iptables -A INPUT -s 65.55.44.100 -p tcp --destination-port 25 -j ACCEPT
# iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --destination-port 25 -j DROP
If you actually want to deny all traffic by default, and only open up holes for specific protocols/addresses/etc., what you want to do is continue to use the rule you have now, and also modify the default policy like so:
# iptables -P INPUT DROP
Otherwise, siposa's answer will drop all SMTP traffic except for the specified IP address, while not affecting other protocols.