this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
6 points (61.5% liked)

Selfhosted

39877 readers
356 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world
HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz
6
ufw's rules is not working (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 weeks ago by someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

, no, I want to open, for example this port, but:

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wireguard appears as closed unless it receives the proper packet.

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

that's what I looked for

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] someoneFromInternet@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

nmap works great for this

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