Error No Policy Defined From Zone
Contents |
defines the high-level policy for connections between zones defined in shorewall-zones(5).ImportantThe order of entries in this file is importantThis file determines what to do with a new connection request if we don't get a match from the /etc/shorewall/rules file . For each source/destination shorewall rules example pair, the file is processed in order until a match is found ("all" shorewall log-level will match any source or destination).ImportantIntra-zone policies are pre-definedFor $FW and for all of the zones defined in /etc/shorewall/zones, the
Shorewall Zones
POLICY for connections from the zone to itself is ACCEPT (with no logging or TCP connection rate limiting) but may be overridden by an entry in this file. The overriding entry must be
Shorewall Rate Limit
explicit (specifying the zone name in both SOURCE and DEST) or it must use "all+" (Shorewall 4.5.17 or later).Similarly, if you have IMPLICIT_CONTINUE=Yes in shorewall.conf, then the implicit policy to/from any sub-zone is CONTINUE. These implicit CONTINUE policies may also be overridden by an explicit entry in this file.The columns in the file are as follows (where the column name is followed by a different name in shorewall masq parentheses, the different name is used in the alternate specification syntax).SOURCE - zone[,...[+]]|$FW|all|all+Source zone. Must be the name of a zone defined in shorewall-zones(5), $FW, "all" or "all+".Support for "all+" was added in Shorewall 4.5.17. "all" does not override the implicit intra-zone ACCEPT policy while "all+" does.Beginning with Shorewall 5.0.12, multiple zones may be listed separated by commas. As above, if '+' is specified after two or more zone names, then the policy overrides the implicit intra-zone ACCEPT policy if the same zone appears in both the SOURCE and DEST columns.DEST - zone[,...[+]]|$FW|all|all+Destination zone. Must be the name of a zone defined in shorewall-zones(5), $FW, "all" or "all+". If the DEST is a bport zone, then the SOURCE must be "all", "all+", another bport zone associated with the same bridge, or it must be an ipv4 zone that is associated with only the same bridge.Support for "all+" was added in Shorewall 4.5.17. "all" does not override the implicit intra-zone ACCEPT policy while "all+" does.Beginning with Shorewall 5.0.12, multiple zones may be listed separated by commas. As above, if '+' is specified after two or more zone names, then the policy overrides the implicit intra-zone ACCEPT policy
[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Hello. The BIND ARM documentation in
Shorewall Interfaces
section 6.2.16.20 says that "Response policy zones are named in the response-policy shorewall examples option for the view or among the global options if there is no response-policy option for the view." However named with the following configuration fails to start: -------------------------------------------------------------- options { directory "/var/named"; dump-file "/var/named/data/cache_dump.db"; statistics-file "/var/named/data/named_stats.txt"; memstatistics-file "/var/named/data/named_mem_stats.txt"; allow-query { any; }; recursion yes; dnssec-enable no; dnssec-validation http://shorewall.net/manpages/shorewall-policy.html no; dnssec-lookaside auto; /* Path to ISC DLV key */ bindkeys-file "/etc/named.iscdlv.key"; managed-keys-directory "/var/named/dynamic"; response-policy { zone "rpz"; }; }; logging { channel default_debug { file "data/named.run" versions 3 size 50M; severity dynamic; }; }; view "trusted" { zone "." IN { type hint; file "named.ca"; }; zone "rpz" { type master; file "rpz.zone"; }; }; view "untrusted" { match-clients https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2015-January/094378.html { any; }; zone "." IN { type hint; file "named.ca"; }; }; -------------------------------------------------------------- It ends with: ... 07-Jan-2015 13:12:58.641 /etc/named.conf:18: 'rpz' is not a master or slave zone 07-Jan-2015 13:12:58.642 loading configuration: not found 07-Jan-2015 13:12:58.642 exiting (due to fatal error) I think the problem is that if the response-policy statement is used within the options statement, then named looks for the zone only in the _default view. However if you use view statements, then all zones have to be defined in some view, thus making the RPZ zone "non-existing" for the global response-policy statement. If I move the response-policy statement to the "trusted" view it starts to work. However based on the documentation it should work also in the first case. Is the documentation wrong or is it a bug in the RPZ implementation? Thanks! Regards, -- Tomas Hozza Software Engineer - EMEA ENG Developer Experience PGP: 1D9F3C2D Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com Previous message: ISC has issued a new code signing key. Previous key expires 31 January Next message: RPZ zone defined in a view Messag
with Zone Map Viewer ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ Aaron MargosisSeptember 22, 201124 0 0 0 IEZoneAnalyzer is a utility for viewing and comparing Internet Explorer security zone settings – that is, the configuration settings that https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/fdcc/2011/09/22/iezoneanalyzer-v3-5-with-zone-map-viewer/ grant web sites in the Intranet zone more capabilities in the browser than web sites in the Internet zone. Earlier today, I wrote about the surprisingly complex rules that determine whether and when explicit mappings of websites to security zones take effect or are ignored. IEZoneAnalyzer version 3.5 adds a Zone Map Viewer that shows which web sites have been specifically assigned to security zones and whether error no the assignment is effective. Click on the “Zone Map Viewer” button in the main dialog’s toolbar to display the Zone Map Viewer. You can toggle the Zone Map Viewer between an “Effective Settings” view and a “Raw Settings” view with labeled toolbar buttons. “Effective Settings” lists the configured web sites and the zones to which they are mapped. The Comments column calls out settings that are applicable only error no policy to 32-bit processes or only to 64-bit processes, or that are completely overridden and never take effect. For example, the first screenshot below shows a number of site assignments to Trusted Sites that are overridden because they are defined in User Preferences, but overridden both because the “use only machine settings” group policy is in effect and because a Computer Configuration Site-To-Zone Assignment policy is in effect. The screenshot also shows two overridden settings that are in effect only when Enhanced Security Configuration (ESC) is enabled, which is not the case as shown by the informational lines at the top of the listing. A given site is listed only once in the Effective Settings view. If a site is mapped the exact same way in a registry location that is in effect and in another that is not in use, the “overridden” one is not shown. That is, a setting is shown as “overridden” only if is defined somewhere differently from what is actually in effect. The “Raw Settings” view, shown below, shows all site-to-zone configuration settings, listing where they are defined, the zone each is assigned to, and whether that particular setting is in effect or ignored. Both views show