on 3-31-2009 8:26 PM Rob Kampen spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 3-30-2009 9:19 PM Rob Kampen spake the following:
Hi folk, I am trying to get iptables working on a samba server but find it is blocking something that prevents the windoze clients from being able to access the share. here are the bits from iptables:
# nmb provided netbios-ns -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m udp -s 192.168.230.100/24 -i eth1 --dport 137 -j ACCEPT # nmb provided netbios-dgm -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m udp -s 192.168.230.100/24 -i eth1 --dport 138 -j ACCEPT # Samba -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -m state -s 192.168.230.100/24 -i eth1 --dport 135 --state NEW -j ACCEPT # smb provided netbios-ssn -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -m state -s 192.168.230.100/24 -i eth1 --dport 139 --state NEW -j ACCEPT # smb provided microsoft-ds -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -m state -s 192.168.230.100/24 -i eth1 --dport 445 --state NEW -j ACCEPT
so as far as I can tell this should provide access to the required services. BTW the server has two NICs; 100Mb is eth0 at 192.168.230.230 and connects to the router with internet/NAT firewall; 1Gb is eth1 at 192.168.230.232 and this connects to a G ethernet switch that has the windoze clients. The smb.conf is as follows: [global] workgroup = NDG netbios name = SAMBA netbios aliases = Samba server string = Samba Server Version %v interfaces = lo, eth1, 192.168.230.232 bind interfaces only = Yes security = DOMAIN obey pam restrictions = Yes passdb backend = tdbsam pam password change = Yes log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log max log size = 50 load printers = No add user script = /usr/sbin/useradd "%u" -n -g users delete user script = /usr/sbin/userdel "%u" add group script = /usr/sbin/groupadd "%g" delete group script = /usr/sbin/groupdel "%g" delete user from group script = /usr/sbin/userdel "%u" "%g" add machine script = /usr/sbin/useradd -n -c "Workstation (%u)" -M -d /nohome -s /bin/false "%u" logon path = domain logons = Yes os level = 32 preferred master = Yes domain master = Yes dns proxy = No wins support = Yes ldap ssl = no create mask = 0664 directory mask = 0775 hosts allow = 127., 192.168.230., 192.168.231. case sensitive = Yes browseable = No available = No wide links = No dont descend = /
[homes] comment = Home Directories valid users = %S read only = No browseable = Yes available = Yes
[NDG] comment = NDG files path = /NDG write list = @NDGstaff, @birdseye read only = No browseable = Yes available = Yes
I found that making the rule for port 139 ignore the eth port (i.e. remove the -i eth1) allowed things to work better, but do not want this to be the case as I do not want the eth0 interface to be used for this traffic. looking at netstat -l -n shows only lo and eth1 listening on port 139, so how is this failing to work?? Any ideas? Thanks Rob
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
What are you attempting to achieve? Having both nics on the same subnet doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Scott Good point, I guess I'm suffering from incremental additions over the last 4 years and no real look at the overall architecture. I'm not sure what would work best. I have a T1 to the big bad internet world via a Linksys RV016 router and this used to deal with everything. The main server provides DNS, apache, ssh, smtp, pop and imap - all needing internet accessibility and then samba for file server that is only required locally. Then along came asterisk server and a Netgear PoE vlan switch to run the snom VoIP / SIP phones, with the * needing internet access but only one NIC. Then along came a 1G ethernet switch to improve access speeds to samba, hence the two NICs on the same subnet - the 100Mb for the internet facing services (although all these services also need to be accessed locally) and the 1Gb NIC for file serving to the five windoze clients. Then I wanted to add firewall to the server to deal with things like tripping up the port 22 script kiddies and then tripped up on the samba...... Confused yet? I guess some careful thought needed to design this appropriately. I was considering having the server do IP forwarding, but this may not be smart as it already does too much. Thanks for the questions - helps me focus on the real issues. Rob - p.s. suggestions welcome
I'll tell you how I did it in a few of our small remote offices. Server is similar to what you have. Some web facing services, some local. T1 for internet access. 2 nics, but different subnets. One subnet is pointed at the T1's ip public address range, using one of the 63 addresses we have. All public services are pointed at this interface. The other nic is on an RFC private address range so no routing leakage will go out over the T1. An old PC running IPCop is used for normal lan to wan traffic with web caching and filtering. It's public address is a different address on the T1's range, and the private address is the default gateway for all the PC's except the server. If PC's need to access the public facing services, they do so through the ipcop box to the T1 router, but not actually out through the internet, it just sort of skims the border and comes back on that subnet. Iptables runs on the server with public ports only accessible from the wan, and private ports only accessible from the lan.
The server's default gateway is the public address, as it is already smart enough to know which interface private lan traffic comes on. You can let the traffic mingle on one switch if you have to, but separate switches or a vlan is much better and lots safer. Our T1 routers have 8 switch ports, so public equipment goes to that side and keeps isolation.