<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Firewall-Management on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/firewall-management/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Firewall-Management on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/firewall-management/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted iptables Rule Persistence and Management: iptables-persistent vs netfilter-persistent vs Firewalld Offline</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-25-linux-iptables-rule-persistence-management-netfilter-firewalld-guide/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-25-linux-iptables-rule-persistence-management-netfilter-firewalld-guide/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The Linux netfilter framework powers iptables, the most widely deployed firewall on Linux servers. But iptables rules exist only in kernel memory — a server reboot wipes every rule, potentially leaving systems completely unprotected until an administrator manually restores the configuration. For self-hosted infrastructure, automating iptables rule persistence is not a convenience; it is a security requirement. Three approaches dominate this space: the Debian &lt;strong&gt;iptables-persistent&lt;/strong&gt; package, the Red Hat &lt;strong&gt;netfilter-persistent&lt;/strong&gt; framework, and &lt;strong&gt;Firewalld offline&lt;/strong&gt; mode with direct interface rules. Each handles persistence differently, and choosing the right one depends on your distribution and management philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
