best way to clear all iptables rules The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InKVM bridge over bonding with multiple subnetsiptables management tools for large scale environmentiptables command to clear all existing rulesIPtables SNAT eats packetsPorts do not open after rules appended in iptablesiptables to block VPN-traffic if not through tun0Why some iptables DNAT rules don't work until reboot?iptables: POSTROUTING rule not matching with markiptables redirect packet natiptables SNAT return traffic not reaching clientsetting upsimple iptables rules to allow ssh, 80, 443 and openvpn
How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?
Short story: child made less intelligent and less attractive
What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?
What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?
Loose spokes after only a few rides
Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?
different output for groups and groups USERNAME after adding a username to a group
Categorical vs continuous feature selection/engineering
Will it cause any balance problems to have PCs level up and gain the benefits of a long rest mid-fight?
Are Newtonian Mechanics considered to be 'falsified'?
Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?
Why doesn't shell automatically fix "useless use of cat"?
How can I have a shield and a way of attacking at distance at the same time?
Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?
Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?
Cooking pasta in a water boiler
Question on an engine pulling a train
How to add class in ko template in magento2
Why did Peik say, "I'm not an animal"?
Word to describe a time interval
Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?
Pascal records and Mathematica programming
How to notate time signature switching consistently every measure
What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?
best way to clear all iptables rules
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InKVM bridge over bonding with multiple subnetsiptables management tools for large scale environmentiptables command to clear all existing rulesIPtables SNAT eats packetsPorts do not open after rules appended in iptablesiptables to block VPN-traffic if not through tun0Why some iptables DNAT rules don't work until reboot?iptables: POSTROUTING rule not matching with markiptables redirect packet natiptables SNAT return traffic not reaching clientsetting upsimple iptables rules to allow ssh, 80, 443 and openvpn
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
I currently have this snippet:
# flush all chains
iptables -F
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
# delete all chains
iptables -X
Is there a possibility that some impervious rule will stay alive after running this?
The idea is to have a completely clean iptables config, that can be easily replaced by new ruleset (nevermind routes/ifconfig's parameters).
iptables firewall
add a comment |
I currently have this snippet:
# flush all chains
iptables -F
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
# delete all chains
iptables -X
Is there a possibility that some impervious rule will stay alive after running this?
The idea is to have a completely clean iptables config, that can be easily replaced by new ruleset (nevermind routes/ifconfig's parameters).
iptables firewall
add a comment |
I currently have this snippet:
# flush all chains
iptables -F
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
# delete all chains
iptables -X
Is there a possibility that some impervious rule will stay alive after running this?
The idea is to have a completely clean iptables config, that can be easily replaced by new ruleset (nevermind routes/ifconfig's parameters).
iptables firewall
I currently have this snippet:
# flush all chains
iptables -F
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
# delete all chains
iptables -X
Is there a possibility that some impervious rule will stay alive after running this?
The idea is to have a completely clean iptables config, that can be easily replaced by new ruleset (nevermind routes/ifconfig's parameters).
iptables firewall
iptables firewall
edited Feb 22 '18 at 5:22
ivanleoncz
4512727
4512727
asked Nov 11 '10 at 3:18
kagali-sankagali-san
63641019
63641019
add a comment |
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
To answer your question succinctly, no: there would not be any "leftover" rules after flushing every table. In the interest of being thorough however, you may want to set the policy for the built-in INPUT
and FORWARD
chains to ACCEPT
, as well:
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
iptables -F
iptables -X
Clear ip6tables rules:
ip6tables -P INPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
ip6tables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -t nat -F
ip6tables -t mangle -F
ip6tables -F
ip6tables -X
...and that should do it. iptables -nvL
should produce this (or very similar) output:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
7
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
add a comment |
This will correctly totally reset your iptables system to a very basic state:
iptables-save | awk '/^[*]/ print $1
/^:[A-Z]+ [^-]/ print $1 " ACCEPT" ;
/COMMIT/ print $0; ' | iptables-restore
All policies will be reset to ACCEPT as well as flushing every table in current use. All chains other than the built in chains will no longer exist.
1
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that theiptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
3
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
2
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
add a comment |
Whenever I need the firewall disabled is something like this:
iptables-save > iptables.bak
service iptables stop
(i'm on fedora)
add a comment |
One can do this in 1 or 2 commands:
$ sudo iptables-save > iptables.bak
$ sudo iptables -F
Result:
$ sudo iptables -nvL
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 3138 packets, 5567K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 3602 packets, 6547K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
5
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
add a comment |
I've had to block all connections recently what I ended up doing was
iptables-policy INPUT DROP
iptables-policy OUTPUT DROP
iptables-policy FORWARD DROP
as for saving I'd recommend the following
Ubuntu:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/service iptables save
RedHat/CentOS:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/iptables-save
In addition to backup all current ufw rules Ive used this in the past
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules /<BACKUP LOCATION>
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules ./
I think this may be useful for future reference. Thought I would share.
add a comment |
Backups configuration to iptables_backup.conf and clean all rules.
iptables-save | tee iptables_backup.conf | grep -v '-A' | iptables-restore
To restore previous configuration:
iptables-restore < iptables_backup.conf
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
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
);
);
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%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f200635%2fbest-way-to-clear-all-iptables-rules%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
To answer your question succinctly, no: there would not be any "leftover" rules after flushing every table. In the interest of being thorough however, you may want to set the policy for the built-in INPUT
and FORWARD
chains to ACCEPT
, as well:
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
iptables -F
iptables -X
Clear ip6tables rules:
ip6tables -P INPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
ip6tables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -t nat -F
ip6tables -t mangle -F
ip6tables -F
ip6tables -X
...and that should do it. iptables -nvL
should produce this (or very similar) output:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
7
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
add a comment |
To answer your question succinctly, no: there would not be any "leftover" rules after flushing every table. In the interest of being thorough however, you may want to set the policy for the built-in INPUT
and FORWARD
chains to ACCEPT
, as well:
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
iptables -F
iptables -X
Clear ip6tables rules:
ip6tables -P INPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
ip6tables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -t nat -F
ip6tables -t mangle -F
ip6tables -F
ip6tables -X
...and that should do it. iptables -nvL
should produce this (or very similar) output:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
7
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
add a comment |
To answer your question succinctly, no: there would not be any "leftover" rules after flushing every table. In the interest of being thorough however, you may want to set the policy for the built-in INPUT
and FORWARD
chains to ACCEPT
, as well:
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
iptables -F
iptables -X
Clear ip6tables rules:
ip6tables -P INPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
ip6tables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -t nat -F
ip6tables -t mangle -F
ip6tables -F
ip6tables -X
...and that should do it. iptables -nvL
should produce this (or very similar) output:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
To answer your question succinctly, no: there would not be any "leftover" rules after flushing every table. In the interest of being thorough however, you may want to set the policy for the built-in INPUT
and FORWARD
chains to ACCEPT
, as well:
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t mangle -F
iptables -F
iptables -X
Clear ip6tables rules:
ip6tables -P INPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
ip6tables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
ip6tables -t nat -F
ip6tables -t mangle -F
ip6tables -F
ip6tables -X
...and that should do it. iptables -nvL
should produce this (or very similar) output:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
edited Feb 19 '17 at 4:03
Aalex Gabi
1227
1227
answered Nov 11 '10 at 5:52
Sam HalickeSam Halicke
4,8221934
4,8221934
7
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
add a comment |
7
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
7
7
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
you forgot about 'raw': iptables -t raw -F iptables -t raw -X
– kK-Storm
Nov 12 '15 at 12:59
add a comment |
This will correctly totally reset your iptables system to a very basic state:
iptables-save | awk '/^[*]/ print $1
/^:[A-Z]+ [^-]/ print $1 " ACCEPT" ;
/COMMIT/ print $0; ' | iptables-restore
All policies will be reset to ACCEPT as well as flushing every table in current use. All chains other than the built in chains will no longer exist.
1
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that theiptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
3
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
2
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
add a comment |
This will correctly totally reset your iptables system to a very basic state:
iptables-save | awk '/^[*]/ print $1
/^:[A-Z]+ [^-]/ print $1 " ACCEPT" ;
/COMMIT/ print $0; ' | iptables-restore
All policies will be reset to ACCEPT as well as flushing every table in current use. All chains other than the built in chains will no longer exist.
1
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that theiptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
3
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
2
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
add a comment |
This will correctly totally reset your iptables system to a very basic state:
iptables-save | awk '/^[*]/ print $1
/^:[A-Z]+ [^-]/ print $1 " ACCEPT" ;
/COMMIT/ print $0; ' | iptables-restore
All policies will be reset to ACCEPT as well as flushing every table in current use. All chains other than the built in chains will no longer exist.
This will correctly totally reset your iptables system to a very basic state:
iptables-save | awk '/^[*]/ print $1
/^:[A-Z]+ [^-]/ print $1 " ACCEPT" ;
/COMMIT/ print $0; ' | iptables-restore
All policies will be reset to ACCEPT as well as flushing every table in current use. All chains other than the built in chains will no longer exist.
edited Nov 11 '10 at 4:11
answered Nov 11 '10 at 3:57
JerubJerub
30829
30829
1
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that theiptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
3
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
2
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
add a comment |
1
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that theiptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
3
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
2
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
1
1
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that the
iptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
Neat hack! I wouldn't depend on it though, since it's always possible that subtle changes to the save/restore format might break it. Probably best to stick to the API that the
iptables
tool explicitly provides, IMO.– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:44
3
3
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
I changed my mind: the data format is unlikely to change much any more, since it's used so widely. +1.
– Steven Monday
Nov 11 '10 at 4:54
2
2
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
+1, interesting hack
– Sam Halicke
Nov 11 '10 at 5:55
add a comment |
Whenever I need the firewall disabled is something like this:
iptables-save > iptables.bak
service iptables stop
(i'm on fedora)
add a comment |
Whenever I need the firewall disabled is something like this:
iptables-save > iptables.bak
service iptables stop
(i'm on fedora)
add a comment |
Whenever I need the firewall disabled is something like this:
iptables-save > iptables.bak
service iptables stop
(i'm on fedora)
Whenever I need the firewall disabled is something like this:
iptables-save > iptables.bak
service iptables stop
(i'm on fedora)
edited Apr 6 '17 at 3:38
nhed
2711412
2711412
answered Nov 11 '10 at 5:13
Realn0wheremanRealn0whereman
1334
1334
add a comment |
add a comment |
One can do this in 1 or 2 commands:
$ sudo iptables-save > iptables.bak
$ sudo iptables -F
Result:
$ sudo iptables -nvL
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 3138 packets, 5567K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 3602 packets, 6547K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
5
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
add a comment |
One can do this in 1 or 2 commands:
$ sudo iptables-save > iptables.bak
$ sudo iptables -F
Result:
$ sudo iptables -nvL
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 3138 packets, 5567K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 3602 packets, 6547K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
5
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
add a comment |
One can do this in 1 or 2 commands:
$ sudo iptables-save > iptables.bak
$ sudo iptables -F
Result:
$ sudo iptables -nvL
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 3138 packets, 5567K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 3602 packets, 6547K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
One can do this in 1 or 2 commands:
$ sudo iptables-save > iptables.bak
$ sudo iptables -F
Result:
$ sudo iptables -nvL
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 3138 packets, 5567K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 3602 packets, 6547K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
answered Apr 29 '17 at 5:13
Mugoma J. OkombaMugoma J. Okomba
1233
1233
5
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
add a comment |
5
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
5
5
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
If the default policies are currently set to DROP, this is a quick way to get locked out of the server. So, no, it's not a 1 or 2 command process. You need to first set to ACCEPT if it's not currently.
– RyanH
May 17 '18 at 16:35
add a comment |
I've had to block all connections recently what I ended up doing was
iptables-policy INPUT DROP
iptables-policy OUTPUT DROP
iptables-policy FORWARD DROP
as for saving I'd recommend the following
Ubuntu:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/service iptables save
RedHat/CentOS:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/iptables-save
In addition to backup all current ufw rules Ive used this in the past
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules /<BACKUP LOCATION>
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules ./
I think this may be useful for future reference. Thought I would share.
add a comment |
I've had to block all connections recently what I ended up doing was
iptables-policy INPUT DROP
iptables-policy OUTPUT DROP
iptables-policy FORWARD DROP
as for saving I'd recommend the following
Ubuntu:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/service iptables save
RedHat/CentOS:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/iptables-save
In addition to backup all current ufw rules Ive used this in the past
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules /<BACKUP LOCATION>
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules ./
I think this may be useful for future reference. Thought I would share.
add a comment |
I've had to block all connections recently what I ended up doing was
iptables-policy INPUT DROP
iptables-policy OUTPUT DROP
iptables-policy FORWARD DROP
as for saving I'd recommend the following
Ubuntu:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/service iptables save
RedHat/CentOS:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/iptables-save
In addition to backup all current ufw rules Ive used this in the past
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules /<BACKUP LOCATION>
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules ./
I think this may be useful for future reference. Thought I would share.
I've had to block all connections recently what I ended up doing was
iptables-policy INPUT DROP
iptables-policy OUTPUT DROP
iptables-policy FORWARD DROP
as for saving I'd recommend the following
Ubuntu:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/service iptables save
RedHat/CentOS:
/etc/init.d/iptables save
/sbin/iptables-save
In addition to backup all current ufw rules Ive used this in the past
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules /<BACKUP LOCATION>
cp /lib/ufw/user.rules,user6.rules ./
I think this may be useful for future reference. Thought I would share.
edited Nov 5 '18 at 20:05
answered Nov 5 '18 at 19:59
BoschkoBoschko
13
13
add a comment |
add a comment |
Backups configuration to iptables_backup.conf and clean all rules.
iptables-save | tee iptables_backup.conf | grep -v '-A' | iptables-restore
To restore previous configuration:
iptables-restore < iptables_backup.conf
add a comment |
Backups configuration to iptables_backup.conf and clean all rules.
iptables-save | tee iptables_backup.conf | grep -v '-A' | iptables-restore
To restore previous configuration:
iptables-restore < iptables_backup.conf
add a comment |
Backups configuration to iptables_backup.conf and clean all rules.
iptables-save | tee iptables_backup.conf | grep -v '-A' | iptables-restore
To restore previous configuration:
iptables-restore < iptables_backup.conf
Backups configuration to iptables_backup.conf and clean all rules.
iptables-save | tee iptables_backup.conf | grep -v '-A' | iptables-restore
To restore previous configuration:
iptables-restore < iptables_backup.conf
answered 11 mins ago
ZibriZibri
1013
1013
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- 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%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f200635%2fbest-way-to-clear-all-iptables-rules%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