Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have an Ubuntu 9.04 server running libvirt/kvm and fail2ban (for SSH attacks).

Both libvirt and fail2ban integrate with iptables in different ways. Libvirt uses (I think) some XML config and during startup (?) configures forwarding to the VM subnet. Fail2ban installs a custom chain (probably at init) and periodically modifies it to ban/unban probable attackers.

I also need to install my own rules to forward various ports to servers running in VMs and on other machines, and set up rudimentary security (e.g. drop all INPUT traffic except the few ports I want open), and of course I'd like the ability to add/remove rules safely without restarting.

It seems to me iptables is a powerful tool that's sorely lacking some sort of standardized way of juggling all this stuff. Every project, and every sysadmin, seems to do it differently! (And I think there's lots of "cargo cult" admin going on here, with people cloning crude approaches like "use iptables-save like so".)

Short of figuring out the gory details of exactly how both of these (and potentially other) tools manipulate the netfilter tables, and developing my own scripts or just manually executing iptables commands, is there any way to safely work with iptables while not breaking the functionality of these other tools? Any nascent standards or projects defined to bring sanity to this area? Even a helpful web page I missed that might cover at least these two packages together?

share|improve this question
    
I have yet to find any sanity, and I have been looking for a while. It seems like every tool that anything to do with iptables assumes it will have exclusive control over your rules. –  Zoredache Apr 14 '10 at 23:48
    
For now, I put my own script first (called by an S14iptables-setup init.d script), flushing/clearing everything and adding my own rules, then allowing fail2ban and libvirt to do their thing, which they do without disturbing my rules. I don't get good dynamic control, and if either tool is stopped it may mess things up, but I'm functional... still, after all these years, this is pathetic if it's the best we can do. –  Peter Hansen Apr 16 '10 at 17:58
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

This is really old but for people who search and find this, fail2ban and like a lot of other utilities are very configurable. You can change your fail2ban action files like iptables-multiport.conf to call iptables and create chains in the way you want it.

eg.

actionstart = iptables -N fail2ban-<name>
          iptables -A fail2ban-<name> -j RETURN
          iptables -I INPUT -p <protocol> -m multiport --dports <port> -j fail2ban-<name>

This creates a rule smack bang in your INPUT chain which is kind of ugly and unmanageable, but you can quite easily put it in one of your own chains in your control. You can create an INPUT filter which then has chains to other filters for fail2ban to keep all it's stuff out of your INPUT chain as below.

actionstart = iptables -N fail2ban-<name>
          iptables -A fail2ban-<name> -j RETURN
          iptables -I INPUT-FAIL2BAN -p <protocol> -m multiport --dports <port> -j fail2ban-<name>

The same goes for libvirt or Xen where there are scripts that are called to do the work. Xen for instance uses /etc/xen/scripts which you'll find the network-bridge and others where iptables is called. Design it as you want.and worst case, change the code. I for one use fail2ban to modify a central firewall so all servers are protected which means iptables on the local machine doesn't show the rules anyway.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.