Yes, filed since I last checked:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=946289
On 12/6/2019 12:09 PM, songbird wrote:
Brian Vaughan wrote:
someone already filed a bug for this (by a quick look
at ufw bug reports).
note that iptables version 1.8.3-2 (current testing version)
a
Brian Vaughan wrote:
someone already filed a bug for this (by a quick look
at ufw bug reports).
note that iptables version 1.8.3-2 (current testing version)
and ufw 0.36-1 work ok (ufw is same version for both testing
and unstable at the moment)
songbird
Brian Vaughan writes:
>
> It looks to me like both in /sbin and in /usr/sbin, there are symlinks
> from the names of the old iptables executables to the nftables
> versions, via /etc/alternatives. So I'm not sure what was actually
> changed, but now I'm thinking that the iptables update revealed
The files exist. They'd been unmodified, and working, for several
months. 'ufw reset' regenerates them with the defaults. Neither of them
includes the word 'DROP', and I don't think their contents are passed
directly to nftables. I'm not familiar with their syntax, so I can't say
if there's any
Le 06/12/2019 à 04:15, Brian Vaughan a écrit :
ERROR: problem running ufw-init
Bad argument `DROP'
Error occurred at line: 4
Try `iptables-restore -h' or 'iptables-restore --help' for more
information.
Bad argument `-'
Error occurred at line: 4
(...)
Problem running '/etc/ufw/user.rules'
Pro
I saw today that ufw.service was failing on boot. From the error
messages I get when executing 'ufw enable' (see below), it looks like
nftables is not accepting the format of the rules from ufw. I've also
tried 'ufw reset', but that didn't change the behavior.
I'm using ufw-0.36-1 and nftables
6 matches
Mail list logo
