ufw rule form errors
First, the errors, then the reasoning:
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp in on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
[sudo] password for robinadm: xxxx
ERROR: Invalid interface clause
Hmm.... perhaps the "in" is redundant with the "from"?
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
ERROR: Wrong number of arguments
Why the need for detail after a default of deny?
I have two NICs, eno1 (= eth0) and eno2 (= eth1).
The former is for specific inbound and outbound LAN communications, the latter will be for limited outbound-only WAN communications.
I want the rule to be very specific as to the access: port, NIC, which LAN system.
I do not want a cluster of rules that require vast amounts of if-then thinking, rather very specific rules that are all-in-one.
I do not want to set the same for any system since there are 17 different OSs and/or OS versions.
Hence, I want to avoid over-simplifications; I just need to understand the correct format which will act as a template for many more.
This one is a good example.
If the format works as modules then it ought, in some way, work as integrated ones as well, which will be cleaner and easier to maintain whence it runs.
I have found piecemeal explanations for each fragmented "piece" of this rule's logic, but see no full-integration logic or even examples anywhere.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving the form so the rule parser stops choking w/o any concrete explanations like a compiler's parser outputs. Thanks.
ufw
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
First, the errors, then the reasoning:
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp in on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
[sudo] password for robinadm: xxxx
ERROR: Invalid interface clause
Hmm.... perhaps the "in" is redundant with the "from"?
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
ERROR: Wrong number of arguments
Why the need for detail after a default of deny?
I have two NICs, eno1 (= eth0) and eno2 (= eth1).
The former is for specific inbound and outbound LAN communications, the latter will be for limited outbound-only WAN communications.
I want the rule to be very specific as to the access: port, NIC, which LAN system.
I do not want a cluster of rules that require vast amounts of if-then thinking, rather very specific rules that are all-in-one.
I do not want to set the same for any system since there are 17 different OSs and/or OS versions.
Hence, I want to avoid over-simplifications; I just need to understand the correct format which will act as a template for many more.
This one is a good example.
If the format works as modules then it ought, in some way, work as integrated ones as well, which will be cleaner and easier to maintain whence it runs.
I have found piecemeal explanations for each fragmented "piece" of this rule's logic, but see no full-integration logic or even examples anywhere.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving the form so the rule parser stops choking w/o any concrete explanations like a compiler's parser outputs. Thanks.
ufw
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Did you readman ufw? The part that saysufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM] allow|deny|reject|limit [in|out] [log|log-all] [PORT[/PROTOCOL] | APPNAME ] [comment COMMENT], and its explanation should help you.
– waltinator
Jan 4 at 4:53
Thanks waltinator. I had just reduced the complexity down to "$ sudo ufw allow proto tcp from 192.168.0.100 port 22" and the template rule was added. Naturally, the MacOSX side failed to access due to the usual [cr]Apple unseen, however, it's a good start. Thanks again. I still want to specify the NIC and am working on that aspect now. ;-)
– frankfenderbender
Jan 4 at 4:58
add a comment |
First, the errors, then the reasoning:
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp in on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
[sudo] password for robinadm: xxxx
ERROR: Invalid interface clause
Hmm.... perhaps the "in" is redundant with the "from"?
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
ERROR: Wrong number of arguments
Why the need for detail after a default of deny?
I have two NICs, eno1 (= eth0) and eno2 (= eth1).
The former is for specific inbound and outbound LAN communications, the latter will be for limited outbound-only WAN communications.
I want the rule to be very specific as to the access: port, NIC, which LAN system.
I do not want a cluster of rules that require vast amounts of if-then thinking, rather very specific rules that are all-in-one.
I do not want to set the same for any system since there are 17 different OSs and/or OS versions.
Hence, I want to avoid over-simplifications; I just need to understand the correct format which will act as a template for many more.
This one is a good example.
If the format works as modules then it ought, in some way, work as integrated ones as well, which will be cleaner and easier to maintain whence it runs.
I have found piecemeal explanations for each fragmented "piece" of this rule's logic, but see no full-integration logic or even examples anywhere.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving the form so the rule parser stops choking w/o any concrete explanations like a compiler's parser outputs. Thanks.
ufw
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
First, the errors, then the reasoning:
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp in on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
[sudo] password for robinadm: xxxx
ERROR: Invalid interface clause
Hmm.... perhaps the "in" is redundant with the "from"?
$ sudo ufw allow 22/tcp on eno1 from 192.168.0.100
ERROR: Wrong number of arguments
Why the need for detail after a default of deny?
I have two NICs, eno1 (= eth0) and eno2 (= eth1).
The former is for specific inbound and outbound LAN communications, the latter will be for limited outbound-only WAN communications.
I want the rule to be very specific as to the access: port, NIC, which LAN system.
I do not want a cluster of rules that require vast amounts of if-then thinking, rather very specific rules that are all-in-one.
I do not want to set the same for any system since there are 17 different OSs and/or OS versions.
Hence, I want to avoid over-simplifications; I just need to understand the correct format which will act as a template for many more.
This one is a good example.
If the format works as modules then it ought, in some way, work as integrated ones as well, which will be cleaner and easier to maintain whence it runs.
I have found piecemeal explanations for each fragmented "piece" of this rule's logic, but see no full-integration logic or even examples anywhere.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in resolving the form so the rule parser stops choking w/o any concrete explanations like a compiler's parser outputs. Thanks.
ufw
ufw
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
asked Jan 4 at 2:55
frankfenderbenderfrankfenderbender
61
61
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
frankfenderbender is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Did you readman ufw? The part that saysufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM] allow|deny|reject|limit [in|out] [log|log-all] [PORT[/PROTOCOL] | APPNAME ] [comment COMMENT], and its explanation should help you.
– waltinator
Jan 4 at 4:53
Thanks waltinator. I had just reduced the complexity down to "$ sudo ufw allow proto tcp from 192.168.0.100 port 22" and the template rule was added. Naturally, the MacOSX side failed to access due to the usual [cr]Apple unseen, however, it's a good start. Thanks again. I still want to specify the NIC and am working on that aspect now. ;-)
– frankfenderbender
Jan 4 at 4:58
add a comment |
Did you readman ufw? The part that saysufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM] allow|deny|reject|limit [in|out] [log|log-all] [PORT[/PROTOCOL] | APPNAME ] [comment COMMENT], and its explanation should help you.
– waltinator
Jan 4 at 4:53
Thanks waltinator. I had just reduced the complexity down to "$ sudo ufw allow proto tcp from 192.168.0.100 port 22" and the template rule was added. Naturally, the MacOSX side failed to access due to the usual [cr]Apple unseen, however, it's a good start. Thanks again. I still want to specify the NIC and am working on that aspect now. ;-)
– frankfenderbender
Jan 4 at 4:58
Did you read
man ufw? The part that says ufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM] allow|deny|reject|limit [in|out] [log|log-all] [PORT[/PROTOCOL] | APPNAME ] [comment COMMENT], and its explanation should help you.– waltinator
Jan 4 at 4:53
Did you read
man ufw? The part that says ufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM] allow|deny|reject|limit [in|out] [log|log-all] [PORT[/PROTOCOL] | APPNAME ] [comment COMMENT], and its explanation should help you.– waltinator
Jan 4 at 4:53
Thanks waltinator. I had just reduced the complexity down to "$ sudo ufw allow proto tcp from 192.168.0.100 port 22" and the template rule was added. Naturally, the MacOSX side failed to access due to the usual [cr]Apple unseen, however, it's a good start. Thanks again. I still want to specify the NIC and am working on that aspect now. ;-)
– frankfenderbender
Jan 4 at 4:58
Thanks waltinator. I had just reduced the complexity down to "$ sudo ufw allow proto tcp from 192.168.0.100 port 22" and the template rule was added. Naturally, the MacOSX side failed to access due to the usual [cr]Apple unseen, however, it's a good start. Thanks again. I still want to specify the NIC and am working on that aspect now. ;-)
– frankfenderbender
Jan 4 at 4:58
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
frankfenderbender is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1106790%2fufw-rule-form-errors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
frankfenderbender is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
frankfenderbender is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
frankfenderbender is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
frankfenderbender is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1106790%2fufw-rule-form-errors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Did you read
man ufw? The part that saysufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM] allow|deny|reject|limit [in|out] [log|log-all] [PORT[/PROTOCOL] | APPNAME ] [comment COMMENT], and its explanation should help you.– waltinator
Jan 4 at 4:53
Thanks waltinator. I had just reduced the complexity down to "$ sudo ufw allow proto tcp from 192.168.0.100 port 22" and the template rule was added. Naturally, the MacOSX side failed to access due to the usual [cr]Apple unseen, however, it's a good start. Thanks again. I still want to specify the NIC and am working on that aspect now. ;-)
– frankfenderbender
Jan 4 at 4:58