Firewalld precedence and rich rules

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a firewalld config which I don't understand entirely. Why aren't the rich-rules taking any affect to allow ssh connections? If I don't put the IP addresses in the sources: the rich-rule isn't allowing the connection.



I have created 2 zones myself HQ, repectively homeusers.



What is the precedence and how should I handle this?



HQ (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 195.x.xxx.xxx 90.xxx.xx.xxx 95.xx.xx.xx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="90.xxx.xx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxx" level="notice" accept

block
 target: %%REJECT%%
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


dmz
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


drop
 target: DROP
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


external
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: yes
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


home
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


internal
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


public
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: https http
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


homeusers (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 92.xxx.xxx.xxx 31.xxx.xxx.xxx 82.xx.xxx.xxx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="95.xx.xx.xx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="92.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxxxxx" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="31.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xwxwxw" level="notice" accept

trusted (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 127.0.0.1 19x.xxx.xxx.xxx
 services: mysql
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


work
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules:



centos networking iptables firewalld




share|improve this question




















  • Shouldn't rich rules: just be rules:
    – Raman Sailopal
    Nov 20 '17 at 12:05














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a firewalld config which I don't understand entirely. Why aren't the rich-rules taking any affect to allow ssh connections? If I don't put the IP addresses in the sources: the rich-rule isn't allowing the connection.



I have created 2 zones myself HQ, repectively homeusers.



What is the precedence and how should I handle this?



HQ (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 195.x.xxx.xxx 90.xxx.xx.xxx 95.xx.xx.xx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="90.xxx.xx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxx" level="notice" accept

block
 target: %%REJECT%%
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


dmz
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


drop
 target: DROP
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


external
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: yes
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


home
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


internal
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


public
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: https http
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


homeusers (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 92.xxx.xxx.xxx 31.xxx.xxx.xxx 82.xx.xxx.xxx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="95.xx.xx.xx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="92.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxxxxx" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="31.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xwxwxw" level="notice" accept

trusted (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 127.0.0.1 19x.xxx.xxx.xxx
 services: mysql
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


work
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules:



centos networking iptables firewalld




share|improve this question




















  • Shouldn't rich rules: just be rules:
    – Raman Sailopal
    Nov 20 '17 at 12:05












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I have a firewalld config which I don't understand entirely. Why aren't the rich-rules taking any affect to allow ssh connections? If I don't put the IP addresses in the sources: the rich-rule isn't allowing the connection.



I have created 2 zones myself HQ, repectively homeusers.



What is the precedence and how should I handle this?



HQ (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 195.x.xxx.xxx 90.xxx.xx.xxx 95.xx.xx.xx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="90.xxx.xx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxx" level="notice" accept

block
 target: %%REJECT%%
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


dmz
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


drop
 target: DROP
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


external
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: yes
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


home
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


internal
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


public
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: https http
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


homeusers (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 92.xxx.xxx.xxx 31.xxx.xxx.xxx 82.xx.xxx.xxx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="95.xx.xx.xx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="92.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxxxxx" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="31.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xwxwxw" level="notice" accept

trusted (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 127.0.0.1 19x.xxx.xxx.xxx
 services: mysql
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


work
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules:



centos networking iptables firewalld




share|improve this question












I have a firewalld config which I don't understand entirely. Why aren't the rich-rules taking any affect to allow ssh connections? If I don't put the IP addresses in the sources: the rich-rule isn't allowing the connection.



I have created 2 zones myself HQ, repectively homeusers.



What is the precedence and how should I handle this?



HQ (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 195.x.xxx.xxx 90.xxx.xx.xxx 95.xx.xx.xx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="90.xxx.xx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="195.x.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxx" level="notice" accept

block
 target: %%REJECT%%
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


dmz
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


drop
 target: DROP
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: 
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


external
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: yes
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


home
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


internal
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh mdns samba-client dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


public
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: https http
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


homeusers (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 92.xxx.xxx.xxx 31.xxx.xxx.xxx 82.xx.xxx.xxx
 services: ssh mysql telnet
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 
 rule family="ipv4" source address="95.xx.xx.xx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access HQ" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="92.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xxxxxxx" level="notice" accept
 rule family="ipv4" source address="31.xxx.xxx.xxx" service name="ssh" log prefix="SSH Access xwxwxw" level="notice" accept

trusted (active)
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 127.0.0.1 19x.xxx.xxx.xxx
 services: mysql
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules: 


work
 target: default
 icmp-block-inversion: no
 interfaces: 
 sources: 
 services: ssh dhcpv6-client
 ports: 
 protocols: 
 masquerade: no
 forward-ports: 
 source-ports: 
 icmp-blocks: 
 rich rules:




centos networking iptables firewalld





share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 20 '17 at 11:45









holasz

139112




139112











  • Shouldn't rich rules: just be rules:
    – Raman Sailopal
    Nov 20 '17 at 12:05
















  • Shouldn't rich rules: just be rules:
    – Raman Sailopal
    Nov 20 '17 at 12:05















Shouldn't rich rules: just be rules:
– Raman Sailopal
Nov 20 '17 at 12:05




Shouldn't rich rules: just be rules:
– Raman Sailopal
Nov 20 '17 at 12:05















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f405751%2ffirewalld-precedence-and-rich-rules%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






















active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f405751%2ffirewalld-precedence-and-rich-rules%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































-

Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this question asked Sep 26 at 0:12 ToanLuong 49 9 add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this questi...
Read more

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP 1 How can I extract a single band from multi-band raster in QGIS? I have an remote sensed image which has 6 bands (including NDVI band), I want to display each band separately, but have no idea how to do. I have seen some questions similar here but none worked for me. The original image (has 6 bands) is: I want to display the band 6 which should be like this: But I tried gdal_translate, and couldn't get the correct result. What I have got is: qgis raster multi-band share | improve this question edited Mar 5 at 0:53 Summer asked Mar 4 at 6:42 Summer Summer 23 6 Is this any help gis.stackexchange.com/questions/220658/… ? if not gis.stackexchange.com/questions/62133/… might help. – Michael Stimson Mar 4 at 6:46 Thanks for answering but when I used gdal_translate, qgis showed that 'Error 4: Kayena.tif: No such file or directory". Would you know how to fi...
Read more

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite I am currently learning reverse engineering and am studying the flags register. I had in my mind that rflags was just another name for one of the 16 general purpose registers, for example rax or rbx . But it looks like rflags is actually an additional register. So that makes 17 registers in total... how many more could there be? I have spent at least an hour on this and found numerous different answers. The best answer so far is this, which says that there are 40 registers in total. 16 General Purpose Registers 2 Status Registers 6 Code Segment Registers 16 SSE Registers 8 FPU/MMX Registers But if I add that up, I get 48. Could anybody provide an official answer on how many registers an x86_64 CPU has (e.g. an Intel i7). Additionally, I have seen references to 'hardware' and 'architectural' registers. What are those registers and how many are there? register x86-64 share | improve this...
Read more