ufw's rules is not working
from someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml to selfhosted@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 19:31
https://lemmy.ml/post/21287683

I want to set up ufw on my server, but something wrong here. Even when I trying to block 22 port ssh still working and nothing changing. I have ufw enabled, but nothing works.

#selfhosted

threaded - newest

themachine@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 19:36 next collapse

Let’s see the rule(s) then

schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business on 11 Oct 19:37 next collapse

Pretty much nobody can help you with the information you provided there.

Minimum required is going to be a ‘ufw status’ output. The whole output, not an edited partial output.

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 19:54 collapse

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/69ddf2ee-6cb3-4760-90ba-26701828b35d.png">

schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business on 11 Oct 19:56 collapse

So you want to block port 22? Yet the rule you added allows access, or am I misunderstanding?

You probably need to be DENY instead of ALLOW if that’s what you’re wanting to accomplish.

bmcgonag@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 20:16 next collapse

This! You have it set to “Allow”, so it’s allowing it. You need to set it to Deny.

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:34 collapse

I understand it

possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip on 12 Oct 01:14 collapse

Is this a troll post or are you really struggling?

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 12 Oct 06:19 collapse

really struggling

possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip on 12 Oct 06:50 collapse 

sudo ufw delete allow 22

Is this a public facing server? If it isn’t the online port port scanners will not work as they are scanning your public IP. Also they are unreliable in general. Best tool for the job is nmap. It has a ton of config options so you will need to do some reading. (Definitely worth the learn)

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:18 collapse

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c1c53903-8248-4e84-af09-af13e740f4cd.png">, no, I want to open, for example this port, but: <img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/7d4ffba3-b8bc-45e8-9e53-9b66a1cbdabf.png">

MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 11 Oct 20:22 next collapse

Do you have something listening on port 52038 that will respond to a port scan? If not it will report as closed.

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:25 collapse

It’s my port for wireguard and here what I can’t understand: when I blocking port for this wireguard service I still can use wireguard even if ufw deny it.

MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 11 Oct 20:43 next collapse

Is wireguard incoming or outgoing from the machine you’re trying to block it on?

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:46 collapse

outgoing, I guess. I mean, it’s on my vps which I want to use for vpn

MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 11 Oct 21:32 collapse

Make sure you’re creating a block rule specifically on outgoing in that case.

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 21:47 collapse

when I just use ufw allow [port] command it’ll not work?

MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 11 Oct 21:57 collapse

Outgoing should already allow everything, so no need to specifically allow it.

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works on 11 Oct 22:07 collapse

Wireguard appears as closed unless it receives the proper packet.

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 22:21 collapse

that’s what I looked for

schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business on 11 Oct 20:23 collapse

That’s a website tool checking? It’s almost certainly only going to check TCP, since most of them don’t do anything with UDP because it’s… more complicated.

You may need to find an alternate way to do that, something like iperf or netcat (nc -u ip port)

AceSLS@ani.social on 12 Oct 12:51 collapse

nmap works great for this

traceroute might also be usable vith the -p switch I guess?

sxan@midwest.social on 11 Oct 19:39 next collapse

Make sure you’re applying them to the active profile.

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 19:56 collapse

how can I make sure?

sxan@midwest.social on 12 Oct 10:42 collapse

Are you using the GUI?

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 12 Oct 12:14 collapse

no

sxan@midwest.social on 12 Oct 12:37 collapse

It’s listed as the “profile” in the screenshots you’re listing, but that’s the ruleset you’re altering.

I used nft or iptables, and my interaction with ufw has been sparse, and mostly through the UI, because the rulesets the GUI generates are incomprehensible. There should be a command in ufw to report which profile is active.

I’m going to guess this is a dead-end, since you’ve been using the CLI and I have to believe it uses the active profile by default, unless you tell it otherwise. However, in the GUI, if you edit rules in a profile it doesn’t automatically apply to your current ruleset. And if you alter your current ruleset, it doesn’t automatically persist it. So, even if you change a rule on the Home profile, and the Home profile is active, it doesn’t automatically get applied to the running ruleset; you have to take another action to apply it.

Mind you, that’s all through the UI; I’ve never used the ufw command line, so this is (again) probably a red herring. I find ufw to be obtuse at best, because of the Byzantine rulesets it generates.

GreatBlue@infosec.pub on 11 Oct 19:59 next collapse

Could you post the output of ufw status verbose ?

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:20 collapse

can you check it in my previous answers, please?

SaltySalamander@fedia.io on 11 Oct 23:13 next collapse

...........

tfw_no_toiletpaper@lemmy.world on 12 Oct 15:53 collapse

What entitlement, I can’t

muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee on 11 Oct 20:10 next collapse

Is docker messing up ur routing?

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:20 collapse

I don’t use docker

muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee on 11 Oct 20:54 collapse

What ur routing tables look like?

someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml on 11 Oct 20:57 collapse

how to check?

muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee on 12 Oct 03:54 collapse

Ask chatgpt before ask people it will save u lots of tine

pogodem0n@lemmy.world on 11 Oct 21:24 collapse

UFW, by default, blocks all incoming requests. This means that SSH (port 22) is blocked already. Then, if you need to, whitelist (ALLOW) ports that you want to expose to the network. For example, I have ports 1714-1764 whitelisted for KDE Connect and everything else is blocked.