Mixing
ufw: what exactly is it?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What is ufw? You would think this is an easy question, but the more sources I read, the less clear it gets.
The acronym spells out to Uncomplicated FireWall, as though ufw actually implements a firewall itself. And indeed in many places it is referred to as a firewall per se, such as this page: https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-enable-disable-firewall-on-ubuntu-18-04-bionic-beaver-linux .
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW says that UFW is a configuration tool for iptables. (In turn, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Firewall says that iptables is the database of firewall rules, and that it is also the actual firewall, as though a database is a firewall, which is obviously false. And of course 'iptables' is also the name of a program.)
If ufw is a configuration tool, then we might expect it to be a program that you run to configure something, and once done, you quit with the config having been established. That's the position of this question's accepted answer: Is Uncomplicated FireWall (ufw) a service?
But other answers on that question disagree -- no, it's a service. And indeed on my 18.04 machine, I see that ufw is running as a service! Why the heck does a configuration tool run as a service?!
Further, 'systemctl list-units --all --type=service' shows ufw.service is loaded and active (and also exited ?!) yet 'ufw status' shows inactive.
So what does ufw status = inactive mean?
a. That "the firewall" (whatever that is) is inactive? That's what this page (http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/cosmic/en/man8/ufw.8.html) doc for 'status' would suggest.
b. Or does it mean that the rules configured in ufw are inactive (but others configured in iptables are active)?
c. Or does it mean that ufw started on bootup, instated its rules into ipconfig (or wherever they go) so that they are now in effect, and now ufw has nothing to do so it's inactive?
-- Edited to add --
Of particular interest: I want to follow some instructions that require issuing some iptables commands, but am concerned that they will conflict with, or be overwritten by, the ufw apparatus.
iptables firewall ufw
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What is ufw? You would think this is an easy question, but the more sources I read, the less clear it gets.
The acronym spells out to Uncomplicated FireWall, as though ufw actually implements a firewall itself. And indeed in many places it is referred to as a firewall per se, such as this page: https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-enable-disable-firewall-on-ubuntu-18-04-bionic-beaver-linux .
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW says that UFW is a configuration tool for iptables. (In turn, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Firewall says that iptables is the database of firewall rules, and that it is also the actual firewall, as though a database is a firewall, which is obviously false. And of course 'iptables' is also the name of a program.)
If ufw is a configuration tool, then we might expect it to be a program that you run to configure something, and once done, you quit with the config having been established. That's the position of this question's accepted answer: Is Uncomplicated FireWall (ufw) a service?
But other answers on that question disagree -- no, it's a service. And indeed on my 18.04 machine, I see that ufw is running as a service! Why the heck does a configuration tool run as a service?!
Further, 'systemctl list-units --all --type=service' shows ufw.service is loaded and active (and also exited ?!) yet 'ufw status' shows inactive.
So what does ufw status = inactive mean?
a. That "the firewall" (whatever that is) is inactive? That's what this page (http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/cosmic/en/man8/ufw.8.html) doc for 'status' would suggest.
b. Or does it mean that the rules configured in ufw are inactive (but others configured in iptables are active)?
c. Or does it mean that ufw started on bootup, instated its rules into ipconfig (or wherever they go) so that they are now in effect, and now ufw has nothing to do so it's inactive?
-- Edited to add --
Of particular interest: I want to follow some instructions that require issuing some iptables commands, but am concerned that they will conflict with, or be overwritten by, the ufw apparatus.
iptables firewall ufw
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What is ufw? You would think this is an easy question, but the more sources I read, the less clear it gets.
The acronym spells out to Uncomplicated FireWall, as though ufw actually implements a firewall itself. And indeed in many places it is referred to as a firewall per se, such as this page: https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-enable-disable-firewall-on-ubuntu-18-04-bionic-beaver-linux .
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW says that UFW is a configuration tool for iptables. (In turn, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Firewall says that iptables is the database of firewall rules, and that it is also the actual firewall, as though a database is a firewall, which is obviously false. And of course 'iptables' is also the name of a program.)
If ufw is a configuration tool, then we might expect it to be a program that you run to configure something, and once done, you quit with the config having been established. That's the position of this question's accepted answer: Is Uncomplicated FireWall (ufw) a service?
But other answers on that question disagree -- no, it's a service. And indeed on my 18.04 machine, I see that ufw is running as a service! Why the heck does a configuration tool run as a service?!
Further, 'systemctl list-units --all --type=service' shows ufw.service is loaded and active (and also exited ?!) yet 'ufw status' shows inactive.
So what does ufw status = inactive mean?
a. That "the firewall" (whatever that is) is inactive? That's what this page (http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/cosmic/en/man8/ufw.8.html) doc for 'status' would suggest.
b. Or does it mean that the rules configured in ufw are inactive (but others configured in iptables are active)?
c. Or does it mean that ufw started on bootup, instated its rules into ipconfig (or wherever they go) so that they are now in effect, and now ufw has nothing to do so it's inactive?
-- Edited to add --
Of particular interest: I want to follow some instructions that require issuing some iptables commands, but am concerned that they will conflict with, or be overwritten by, the ufw apparatus.
iptables firewall ufw
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What is ufw? You would think this is an easy question, but the more sources I read, the less clear it gets.
The acronym spells out to Uncomplicated FireWall, as though ufw actually implements a firewall itself. And indeed in many places it is referred to as a firewall per se, such as this page: https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-enable-disable-firewall-on-ubuntu-18-04-bionic-beaver-linux .
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UFW says that UFW is a configuration tool for iptables. (In turn, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Firewall says that iptables is the database of firewall rules, and that it is also the actual firewall, as though a database is a firewall, which is obviously false. And of course 'iptables' is also the name of a program.)
If ufw is a configuration tool, then we might expect it to be a program that you run to configure something, and once done, you quit with the config having been established. That's the position of this question's accepted answer: Is Uncomplicated FireWall (ufw) a service?
But other answers on that question disagree -- no, it's a service. And indeed on my 18.04 machine, I see that ufw is running as a service! Why the heck does a configuration tool run as a service?!
Further, 'systemctl list-units --all --type=service' shows ufw.service is loaded and active (and also exited ?!) yet 'ufw status' shows inactive.
So what does ufw status = inactive mean?
a. That "the firewall" (whatever that is) is inactive? That's what this page (http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/cosmic/en/man8/ufw.8.html) doc for 'status' would suggest.
b. Or does it mean that the rules configured in ufw are inactive (but others configured in iptables are active)?
c. Or does it mean that ufw started on bootup, instated its rules into ipconfig (or wherever they go) so that they are now in effect, and now ufw has nothing to do so it's inactive?
-- Edited to add --
Of particular interest: I want to follow some instructions that require issuing some iptables commands, but am concerned that they will conflict with, or be overwritten by, the ufw apparatus.
iptables firewall ufw
iptables firewall ufw
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 25 mins ago
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
asked 3 hours ago
gwideman
1114
1114
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
gwideman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
ufw is a front-end for netfilter/iptables, the Linux mechanism for routing and filtering internet traffic.
ufw is completely optional and it's possible to create firewall and routing tables directly using the iptables commands. Some people prefer the syntax of ufw, which is supposed to make it a bit easier.
ufw itself is not the firewall, it's a tool for setting the configuration of netfilter/iptables. It is registered as a service because it needs to be run every time your machine starts up. I don't believe it stays resident in memory after it has done this configuration. "restarting" the service simply re-runs its scripts. It is not unusual for things in Linux distributions to be registered as services even though they are merely scripts that run at boot or shutdown without staying resident in between.
If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own. This also means that ufw can conflict with other tools that set firewall rules.
If sudo ufw status returns "inactive", it means ufw has been disabled (and won't, for example, re-apply any rules at startup). You need to ensure ufw is enabled with sudo ufw enable, though you also need to configure rules for this to have meaning. If you are sure you have enabled ufw but it returns "inactive" there could be some other issue.
Note that "starting" the service doesn't enable ufw, it just activates the start-up script. If ufw is disabled when the start-up script runs it won't do anything.
You can tell if your firewall rules have been applied at any given time using iptables directly:
sudo iptables -L
sudo ip6tables -L
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
1
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
Im gonna lose rep for this but Is ufw similar to PeerGuardian with block lists? I am looking for a ubuntu equivalent of that software?
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
ufw is a front-end for netfilter/iptables, the Linux mechanism for routing and filtering internet traffic.
ufw is completely optional and it's possible to create firewall and routing tables directly using the iptables commands. Some people prefer the syntax of ufw, which is supposed to make it a bit easier.
ufw itself is not the firewall, it's a tool for setting the configuration of netfilter/iptables. It is registered as a service because it needs to be run every time your machine starts up. I don't believe it stays resident in memory after it has done this configuration. "restarting" the service simply re-runs its scripts. It is not unusual for things in Linux distributions to be registered as services even though they are merely scripts that run at boot or shutdown without staying resident in between.
If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own. This also means that ufw can conflict with other tools that set firewall rules.
If sudo ufw status returns "inactive", it means ufw has been disabled (and won't, for example, re-apply any rules at startup). You need to ensure ufw is enabled with sudo ufw enable, though you also need to configure rules for this to have meaning. If you are sure you have enabled ufw but it returns "inactive" there could be some other issue.
Note that "starting" the service doesn't enable ufw, it just activates the start-up script. If ufw is disabled when the start-up script runs it won't do anything.
You can tell if your firewall rules have been applied at any given time using iptables directly:
sudo iptables -L
sudo ip6tables -L
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
1
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
ufw is a front-end for netfilter/iptables, the Linux mechanism for routing and filtering internet traffic.
ufw is completely optional and it's possible to create firewall and routing tables directly using the iptables commands. Some people prefer the syntax of ufw, which is supposed to make it a bit easier.
ufw itself is not the firewall, it's a tool for setting the configuration of netfilter/iptables. It is registered as a service because it needs to be run every time your machine starts up. I don't believe it stays resident in memory after it has done this configuration. "restarting" the service simply re-runs its scripts. It is not unusual for things in Linux distributions to be registered as services even though they are merely scripts that run at boot or shutdown without staying resident in between.
If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own. This also means that ufw can conflict with other tools that set firewall rules.
If sudo ufw status returns "inactive", it means ufw has been disabled (and won't, for example, re-apply any rules at startup). You need to ensure ufw is enabled with sudo ufw enable, though you also need to configure rules for this to have meaning. If you are sure you have enabled ufw but it returns "inactive" there could be some other issue.
Note that "starting" the service doesn't enable ufw, it just activates the start-up script. If ufw is disabled when the start-up script runs it won't do anything.
You can tell if your firewall rules have been applied at any given time using iptables directly:
sudo iptables -L
sudo ip6tables -L
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
1
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
ufw is a front-end for netfilter/iptables, the Linux mechanism for routing and filtering internet traffic.
ufw is completely optional and it's possible to create firewall and routing tables directly using the iptables commands. Some people prefer the syntax of ufw, which is supposed to make it a bit easier.
ufw itself is not the firewall, it's a tool for setting the configuration of netfilter/iptables. It is registered as a service because it needs to be run every time your machine starts up. I don't believe it stays resident in memory after it has done this configuration. "restarting" the service simply re-runs its scripts. It is not unusual for things in Linux distributions to be registered as services even though they are merely scripts that run at boot or shutdown without staying resident in between.
If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own. This also means that ufw can conflict with other tools that set firewall rules.
If sudo ufw status returns "inactive", it means ufw has been disabled (and won't, for example, re-apply any rules at startup). You need to ensure ufw is enabled with sudo ufw enable, though you also need to configure rules for this to have meaning. If you are sure you have enabled ufw but it returns "inactive" there could be some other issue.
Note that "starting" the service doesn't enable ufw, it just activates the start-up script. If ufw is disabled when the start-up script runs it won't do anything.
You can tell if your firewall rules have been applied at any given time using iptables directly:
sudo iptables -L
sudo ip6tables -L
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
ufw is a front-end for netfilter/iptables, the Linux mechanism for routing and filtering internet traffic.
ufw is completely optional and it's possible to create firewall and routing tables directly using the iptables commands. Some people prefer the syntax of ufw, which is supposed to make it a bit easier.
ufw itself is not the firewall, it's a tool for setting the configuration of netfilter/iptables. It is registered as a service because it needs to be run every time your machine starts up. I don't believe it stays resident in memory after it has done this configuration. "restarting" the service simply re-runs its scripts. It is not unusual for things in Linux distributions to be registered as services even though they are merely scripts that run at boot or shutdown without staying resident in between.
If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own. This also means that ufw can conflict with other tools that set firewall rules.
If sudo ufw status returns "inactive", it means ufw has been disabled (and won't, for example, re-apply any rules at startup). You need to ensure ufw is enabled with sudo ufw enable, though you also need to configure rules for this to have meaning. If you are sure you have enabled ufw but it returns "inactive" there could be some other issue.
Note that "starting" the service doesn't enable ufw, it just activates the start-up script. If ufw is disabled when the start-up script runs it won't do anything.
You can tell if your firewall rules have been applied at any given time using iptables directly:
sudo iptables -L
sudo ip6tables -L
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
answered 3 hours ago
thomasrutter
25.9k46187
25.9k46187
1
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
1
1
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Note: I personally don't use ufw, I use a package called netfilter-persistent which allows you to write up native iptables rules into a file and have them re-applied at boot. At boot, it essentially does what ufw does: runs a start script which applies the configuration. The difference is it's not translating from its own simplified syntax, it's merely sending the iptables commands directly to iptables.
– thomasrutter
2 hours ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Lots of good stuff there. Thanks. On this: "If you use ufw you can't set your own iptables rules using your own scripts, as they will be overwritten when ufw sets its own." Does ufw actively delete all existing iptables rules? Or are you just saying with ufw in the picture, you can't rely on iptables commands/rules taking effect because they might get overwritten by ufw?
– gwideman
29 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
Also to thomas: "netfilter-persistent" > does that relate to iptables-persistent?
– gwideman
28 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
Im gonna lose rep for this but Is ufw similar to PeerGuardian with block lists? I am looking for a ubuntu equivalent of that software?
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
Im gonna lose rep for this but Is ufw similar to PeerGuardian with block lists? I am looking for a ubuntu equivalent of that software?
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
Im gonna lose rep for this but Is ufw similar to PeerGuardian with block lists? I am looking for a ubuntu equivalent of that software?
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Im gonna lose rep for this but Is ufw similar to PeerGuardian with block lists? I am looking for a ubuntu equivalent of that software?
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
answered 2 hours ago
Ember Leona
11
11
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ember Leona is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
5
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
5
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
5
5
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Please don't use the "Post Your Answer" button to submit content which does not attempt to answer the question at the top of the page. If you want to ask a new question, there is a separate "Ask" button for that. Obviously, feel free to link back to this question if you find it pertinent (the question's title is a clickable link you can copy/paste).
– tripleee
1 hour ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
Yay I can comment now! I hate this website tripleee but I like it a teensy bit more than yahoo questions.
– Ember Leona
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
gwideman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
gwideman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
gwideman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
gwideman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1090122%2fufw-what-exactly-is-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
