LinuxServer-CI
commented
3 months ago | I am a bot, here are the test results for this PR: https://ci-tests.linuxserver.io/lspipepr/fail2ban/1.0.2-r3-pkg-a4dab79a-dev-7c79365b68862a9114204d7fbd1ec6824b26579b-pr-26/index.html https://ci-tests.linuxserver.io/lspipepr/fail2ban/1.0.2-r3-pkg-a4dab79a-dev-7c79365b68862a9114204d7fbd1ec6824b26579b-pr-26/shellcheck-result.xml | Tag | Passed |
|---|---|---|
| amd64-1.0.2-r3-pkg-a4dab79a-dev-7c79365b68862a9114204d7fbd1ec6824b26579b-pr-26 | ✅ | |
| arm64v8-1.0.2-r3-pkg-a4dab79a-dev-7c79365b68862a9114204d7fbd1ec6824b26579b-pr-26 | ✅ |
Description:
The recent rebase to Alpine 3.19 broke the functionality on hosts which use iptables such as Unraid. This PR also installs the Alpine package
iptables-legacyso that users on these systems may still use the container. This PR fixes #25.Benefits of this PR and context:
The container is unusable on hosts which only have iptables. With this PR it will remain usable.
How Has This Been Tested?
Installed a container on two computers, one which is an Unraid system and another an Arch linux system. The Unraid one uses iptables while the Arch one uses nftables. I configured fail2ban to monitor ssh on each, and an entry was added to the tables for ssh as expected. After multiple test unsuccessful attempts it blocked me afterwards. @danielaranki performed a similar test last week and showed his findings in #25.
The user will need to specify in their jail.local file which backend to use (also pointed out by @danielaranki in #25):