[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- List of rules not consistent with the rule added https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237446 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing l

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released => Incomplete ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Fix Committed -- List of rules not consistent with the rule added https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237446 You received this bug notification because you are a member of U

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

This bug was fixed in the package ufw - 0.19 --- ufw (0.19) intrepid; urgency=low * don't modify the chains when --dry-run is specified (LP: #247352) * add dotted netmask support * don't have util.py import common.py * normalize rules so what is added to chains and what is dis

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

Thanks very much!!! :D -- List of rules not consistent with the rule added https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237446 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubu

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

Committed fix to bzr, will roll out to intrepid within the next few days. ** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed -- List of rules not consistent with the rule added https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237446 You received this bug notification because you are a member o

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

Thanks for using ufw and reporting this bug. I can confirm that using 111.12.34.2/4 does not work as expected. I hope to fix this so that it will allow the removal of 96.0.0.0/4. I have already started on this, and it will be in a future commit. The problem with removing the http port is that your

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

Marcus, I think UFW is actually correct here... I have never seen a 4 bit mask before but it does break down along the lines it shows. 96.0.0.0 is the start of the /4 mask that contains 111.12.34.2 so by telling UFW you want to block 111.12.34.2/4 it interprets (Correctly) that you mean 96.0.0.

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

Other example: If I added allow http. In the future I must remove http, not port 80 protocol tcp (I watch it). [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo ufw status Firewall loaded [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo ufw allow http Rule added [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo ufw status Firewall loaded To

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

** Changed in: ufw (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Jamie Strandboge (jdstrand) Status: New => Confirmed -- List of rules not consistent with the rule added https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237446 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is su

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

** Attachment added: "Bad erase ufw" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/15018142/ufw%20bad%20erase.txt -- List of rules not consistent with the rule added https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/237446 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubunt

[Bug 237446] Re: List of rules not consistent with the rule added

You can see how the rule can't delete if I try with 96.0.0.0/4. The real rule is 111.12.34.2/4, but I see 96.0.0.0/4 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo ufw status Firewall loaded To Action From -- -- Anywhere DENY1.0.0.0/8