Talk:Firewall - Revision history

203.33.161.175 at 00:51, 14 April 2008

2008-04-14T00:51:21Z

83.42.78.56 at 14:09, 11 September 2005

2005-09-11T14:09:10Z

81.130.0.15: AMule High ID from behind a BT Voyager 2100

2005-09-09T14:02:34Z

AMule High ID from behind a BT Voyager 2100

82.66.21.14 at 16:04, 22 July 2005

2005-07-22T16:04:44Z

GonoszTopi at 10:37, 19 July 2005

2005-07-19T10:37:41Z

82.66.21.14 at 00:11, 19 July 2005

2005-07-19T00:11:09Z

82.44.103.231 at 19:33, 6 July 2005

2005-07-06T19:33:02Z

82.44.103.231 at 19:32, 6 July 2005

2005-07-06T19:32:31Z

Jacobo221 at 01:10, 17 June 2005

2005-06-17T01:10:51Z

24.215.161.51 at 23:52, 16 June 2005

2005-06-16T23:52:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 14 April 2008
Line 96:		Line 96:

	'''No idea. Just go to NAT configuration or port forwarding configuration and open the apropiate ports. Google for "eMule ports voyager 2100" and you will most likely find something usefull. Greets'''		'''No idea. Just go to NAT configuration or port forwarding configuration and open the apropiate ports. Google for "eMule ports voyager 2100" and you will most likely find something usefull. Greets'''
		+
		+	I'm trying to get HighID and am trying to understand: do I need a static IP?
		+
		+	Should [[port forwarding]] redirect to this page?
		+
		+	Thanks - Krop

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 stephane.
-== AMule High ID from behind a BT Voyager 2100 ==
+----
 Anyone know what settings I need to use to get a high ID?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 9 September 2005
Line 88:		Line 88:

	stephane.		stephane.
		+
		+	== AMule High ID from behind a BT Voyager 2100 ==
		+
		+	Anyone know what settings I need to use to get a high ID?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 22 July 2005
Line 66:		Line 66:

	[[User:GonoszTopi\|GonoszTopi]]		[[User:GonoszTopi\|GonoszTopi]]
		+
		+
		+	---
		+
		+	My rule for aMule is (iptables v1.2.11) :
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED --dport 4662 -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	I have disabled the udp port in aMule so I don't need to open them. However, if I had keep them open, I would have these lines too :
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p udp -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED --dport 4665 -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p udp -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED --dport 4672 -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	I have tested with 'netstat -taupe' and the clients connected to me use the ESTABLISHED state so it seems that I could delete the RELATED state (further tests needed). If it's true, my rule becomes :
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED --dport 4662 -j ACCEPT
		+
		+
		+	Your rules check different thing than mine. Perhaps it could be interresting to mix them.
		+
		+	stephane.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:37, 19 July 2005
Line 52:		Line 52:

	stephane.		stephane.
		+
		+	---
		+
		+	I use the following rules (well, [http://www.netfilter.org/ iptables] 1.2.7a):
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 4662 --tcp-flags SYN,RST,ACK SYN -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 4665 -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 4672 -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	and [[aMule]] works great with them. I don't how much are these the same as yours, stephane. (Policy rule is not included intentionally)
		+
		+	[[User:GonoszTopi\|GonoszTopi]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:11, 19 July 2005
Line 15:		Line 15:

	The instructions do not work with my Dlink DI-604. When I try and add the Application rule I get a notice saying that there is a conflict with the Virtual Server rule I've just set up. HTH		The instructions do not work with my Dlink DI-604. When I try and add the Application rule I get a notice saying that there is a conflict with the Virtual Server rule I've just set up. HTH
		+
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	Cleaning the iptables rules :
		+	I think the basic rules (section 2 : IPTables Configuration) are not really good.
		+	If you use (as said in the wiki) :
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport XX -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	it works but to my mind the other lign :
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	does nothing because the first lign accept all state packets (NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED,UNTRACKED and INVALID). So the first line accept more the second (but only for the amule ports).
		+
		+	I think we could increase the security by using :
		+
		+	iptables -P INPUT DROP
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport XX -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
		+
		+	The first line is the global policy : we drop all.
		+	The second line is the strategy for amule.
		+	The third line is the strategy for the other ports.
		+
		+	For aMule,we need the 'ESTABLISHED' and 'RELATED' states to allow the answer to our requests. We need the 'NEW' state to allow the request of the others p2p clients. If we don't allow 'NEW', we are on low ID. (that's the result of my test.)
		+
		+	Perhaps, it's even possible to delete ESTABLISHED or RELATED (only one). It depends on how the answer request are done. (? I don't know. Need further research.)
		+
		+	Of course, you need to add modified lines if XX+3 or UDP are needed.
		+
		+	I don't made direct change on the wiki because I think several persons should test my change to check if I have made an error.
		+
		+	stephane.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 6 July 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:
	''':-) Thanks for your tips!'''		''':-) Thanks for your tips!'''

−	The instructions do not work with my Dlink DI-604. When I try and add the Application rule I get a notice saying that there is a conflict with the Virtual Server rule I've just set up.	+	The instructions do not work with my Dlink DI-604. When I try and add the Application rule I get a notice saying that there is a conflict with the Virtual Server rule I've just set up. HTH

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 6 July 2005
Line 13:		Line 13:

	''':-) Thanks for your tips!'''		''':-) Thanks for your tips!'''
		+
		+	The instructions do not work with my Dlink DI-604. When I try and add the Application rule I get a notice saying that there is a conflict with the Virtual Server rule I've just set up.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, 17 June 2005
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I just threw some D-Link info in there, based on what I did on my DI-624 to get aMule to show High ID. I have to admit though that I don't quite get how the Applications page settings relate to the port forwarding in Virtual Servers, unless you do an entry in Virtual Servers for each port in the 4662-4672 range for UDP. Any thoughts? -Sharakan		I just threw some D-Link info in there, based on what I did on my DI-624 to get aMule to show High ID. I have to admit though that I don't quite get how the Applications page settings relate to the port forwarding in Virtual Servers, unless you do an entry in Virtual Servers for each port in the 4662-4672 range for UDP. Any thoughts? -Sharakan
		+
		+	''':-) Thanks for your tips!'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:52, 16 June 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:

	'''You're not. But only if there are at least four == sections in the article. Otherwise no menu will be created'''		'''You're not. But only if there are at least four == sections in the article. Otherwise no menu will be created'''
		+
		+	I just threw some D-Link info in there, based on what I did on my DI-624 to get aMule to show High ID. I have to admit though that I don't quite get how the Applications page settings relate to the port forwarding in Virtual Servers, unless you do an entry in Virtual Servers for each port in the 4662-4672 range for UDP. Any thoughts? -Sharakan