You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1 2012-06-01 18:27:16
- hungerfish
- Member
- Registered: 2009-09-13
- Posts: 254
[solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
Hi,
I'm using ufw for configuring my firewall, nothing fancy as the system concerned is a laptop.
Now I'm getting ALOT of output from ufw in dmesg, which I don't want there.
Is there anyway to disable the messages showing up there?
Sample:
[UFW BLOCK] IN=wlan0 OUT= MAC=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:1a:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx SRC=192.168.22.1 DST=224.0.0.1 LEN=36 TOS=0x00 PREC=0xC0 TTL=1 ID=7686 DF PROTO=2
[UFW BLOCK] IN=wlan0 OUT= MAC=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:1a:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx SRC=192.168.22.1 DST=192.168.22.29 LEN=60 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=58874 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=4680 DPT=14013 WINDOW=5840 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0
Last edited by hungerfish (2012-06-01 19:38:47)
Beetles and bacteria are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival.
Offline
#2 2012-06-01 19:03:05
- graysky
- Wiki Maintainer
- From: :wq
- Registered: 2008-12-01
- Posts: 10,643
- Website
Re: [solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
See my.alias file for a workaround.
CPU-optimized Linux-ck packages @ Repo-ck • AUR packages • Zsh and other configs
Offline
#3 2012-06-01 19:38:17
- hungerfish
- Member
- Registered: 2009-09-13
- Posts: 254
Re: [solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
alias dmesg="dmesg | sed '/UFW/d'"
Hey, great workaround! :-D
Truly KISS
Beetles and bacteria are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival.
Offline
#4 2012-06-02 11:34:20
- rwd
- Member
- Registered: 2009-02-08
- Posts: 664
Re: [solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
Isn't there some option to control log-level for ufw?
Offline
#5 2013-02-11 18:43:41
- T.J.S.
- Member
- Registered: 2012-08-14
- Posts: 83
Re: [solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
Ok, I know I shouldn't bump this (solved) thread, it's against the forum rules, Bob Loblaw, but.
I'm having the same issue, and it's fixed with two workarounds:
Either allow your router's IP address (mine is 192.168.2.1) with "ufw allow from 192.168.2.1".
Or disable logging with "ufw logging off".
I'm really curious if the first option could cause some kind of security hole, and if you could "limit" the access with more options in the command (like allowing specific ports or something).
If it doesn't cause security holes, it's obviously the better of the two options.
Offline
#6 2013-02-11 19:33:17
- graysky
- Wiki Maintainer
- From: :wq
- Registered: 2008-12-01
- Posts: 10,643
- Website
Re: [solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
Use ufw-bzr from the AUR.
CPU-optimized Linux-ck packages @ Repo-ck • AUR packages • Zsh and other configs
Offline
#7 2013-02-11 20:18:34
- T.J.S.
- Member
- Registered: 2012-08-14
- Posts: 83
Re: [solved]ufw 'polluting' dmesg
What's the difference with the official package?
Does it fix something crucial, or just the logging thing?
Also my primary question is if anyone should allow access from their routers, and what kind of traffic is this one which comes from your router?
Offline