Error need to or from clause

I am using Ubuntu 20.04.3 LTS, although this question is probably not specific to Ubuntu but to any system using ufw.
I am setting up a rule for VNC vino connections.
I meant to do that via a configured app.
I created /etc/ufw/applications.d/vino-server with the following contents

[Vino Server]
title = “Vino VNC Server”
description = “Vino - Default Ubuntu VNC server”
ports=5900,5901/tcp

and then

$ sudo ufw allow app "Vino Server" from 192.168.0.0/24
ERROR: Need 'from' or 'to' with 'app'

How can I solve this error?

I executed then

$ sudo ufw allow from 192.168.0.0/24 proto tcp to any port 5900

which added one line to the ufw status (see below), and finally allowed connection via remmina. So it seems I am ok to connect, and only missing the app-way configuration/allowing.

$ sudo nmap localhost
Starting Nmap 7.80 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2021-11-19 08:03 -03
Nmap scan report for localhost (127.0.0.1)
Host is up (0.0000070s latency).
Not shown: 997 closed ports
PORT     STATE SERVICE
22/tcp   open  ssh
631/tcp  open  ipp
5900/tcp open  vnc

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.18 seconds

$ sudo ufw status verbose
Status: active
Logging: on (low)
Default: deny (incoming), allow (outgoing), disabled (routed)
New profiles: skip

To                         Action      From
--                         ------      ----
22/tcp                     ALLOW IN    Anywhere                  
5900/tcp                   ALLOW IN    192.168.0.0/24      <--- THIS LINE ADDED    
22/tcp (v6)                ALLOW IN    Anywhere (v6)             

$ sudo ss -ltnp
State        Recv-Q       Send-Q             Local Address:Port              Peer Address:Port       Process                                          
LISTEN       0            5                      127.0.0.1:631                    0.0.0.0:*           users:(("cupsd",pid=727,fd=7))                  
LISTEN       0            128                    127.0.0.1:6010                   0.0.0.0:*           users:(("sshd",pid=9845,fd=11))                 
LISTEN       0            5                        0.0.0.0:5900                   0.0.0.0:*           users:(("vino-server",pid=6594,fd=12))          
LISTEN       0            4096               127.0.0.53%lo:53                     0.0.0.0:*           users:(("systemd-resolve",pid=704,fd=13))       
LISTEN       0            128                      0.0.0.0:22                     0.0.0.0:*           users:(("sshd",pid=7138,fd=3))                  
LISTEN       0            5                          [::1]:631                       [::]:*           users:(("cupsd",pid=727,fd=6))                  
LISTEN       0            128                        [::1]:6010                      [::]:*           users:(("sshd",pid=9845,fd=10))                 
LISTEN       0            5                           [::]:5900                      [::]:*           users:(("vino-server",pid=6594,fd=11))          
LISTEN       0            128                         [::]:22                        [::]:*           users:(("sshd",pid=7138,fd=4))

Thread: UFW question

Thread Tools

Display

UFW question

# ufw status
Status: active

To Action From
— —— —-
22 DENY Anywhere
Apache DENY Anywhere
80 ALLOW 10.206.20.0/24

As one can see, te deny from everywhere to Apache messes with rule 3, the allow to port 80.

How can I either:

1) delete rule 2 and rule 3
2) add a rule for app Apache that allows from 10.206.20.0/24

Many thanks in advance.
z

PS. No, I don’t want to use another firewall. iptables is fine.

Re: UFW question

Found out how to delete rule 3:

# ufw delete allow from 10.206.20.0/24 to any port 80
Rule deleted

Still cannot work out the app rule:
# ufw delete deny app apache
ERROR: Need ‘to’ or ‘from’ clause
# ufw delete deny app Apache
ERROR: Need ‘to’ or ‘from’ clause
# ufw delete deny app Apache to any port
ERROR: Wrong number of arguments

Re: UFW question

install GUFW for a grahical interface as it is easier to remove and add rules for UFW imo

Re: UFW question

I did anticipate you reply.

Sorry, when I wrote: PS. No, I don’t want to use another firewall. iptables is fine. I also meant to cover GUIs as well.

Let me add.
i) X is not installed.
ii) These is a headless server.

Re: UFW question

Sorry my assistance was not what you wanted

Re: UFW question

Out of hope, I added the gufw to the server and Xdisplayed it back to another PC. GUFW cannot remove the rule. One can select the rule and try and delete it but the message «error performing operation» is given.

As a workaround, I ran:
ufw allow Apache

and this dropped the deny rule so at least it is allowed. However, I think I shall steer away from ufw and use iptables directly. At least I shall have full control over what it does and I can confidently add and delete rules.

Re: UFW question

Since ufw is (reportedly) a front end for iptables, I presume you should still be able to edit the iptables rules directly. Good Luck!

Re: UFW question

Hmmm. from looking at the tutorial here, it looks like your syntax is a tad off.

Источник

Database.Guide

Beginners

Categories

• Azure SQL Edge (16)
• Database Concepts (48)
• Database Tools (70)
• DBMS (8)
• MariaDB (420)
• Microsoft Access (17)
• MongoDB (265)
• MySQL (375)
• NoSQL (7)
• Oracle (296)
• PostgreSQL (255)
• Redis (185)
• SQL (588)
• SQL Server (888)
• SQLite (235)

Fix “ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table” in PostgreSQL when using UNION, EXCEPT, or INTERSECT

If you’re getting “ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table” in PostgreSQL when using an operator such as UNION , INTERSECT , or EXCEPT , it could be because you’re qualifying a column name with its table name.

To fix this, either remove the table name or use a column alias.

Example of Error

Here’s an example of code that produces the error:

In this case I tried to order the results by the TeacherName column, but I qualified that column with the table name (I used Teachers.TeacherName to reference the column name).

Referencing tables like this doesn’t work when ordering the results of UNION , EXCEPT , or INTERSECT .

Solution 1

One way to fix this issue is to remove the table name from the ORDER BY clause:

Solution 2

Another way to fix it is to use an alias for the column:

With this option, we assign an alias to the column, and then reference that alias in the ORDER BY clause.

Источник

Missing FROM-clause entry for table « », что делать?

• Вопрос задан более двух лет назад
• 3618 просмотров

Простой 4 комментария

В FROM нужно указать таблицу teterika.users и условие связи с таблицей teterika.lessons.
если условие не указать, то свяжется каждая строка одной таблицы с каждой строкой другой таблицы, получится декартово произведение таблиц.

Кстати, ваш запрос не имеет смысла, потому что из teterika.users.role у вас извлечется только запись ‘tutor’ в соответствии с условием. Т.е. ваш запрос можно заменить на:

Разве что вам действительно нужно получить декартово произведение всех уроков со всеми учителями.

А как это называется,когда после запятой в select указывается условие ‘tutor’ ,этому есть название?

И кстати,мне и нужно извлечь только записи с ‘tutor’ , у меня их определённое количество

И ещё ,если моя команда находится долго в процессе обработки и не выводит мой запрос на экран,о чём это может говорить?

gowwa123, когда в SELECT указывается не имя поля, а конкретное значение, строковое или числовое, это называется константа. И это приводит к тому, что в выборку добавиться колонка, в которой, по каждой строке будет это значение.

И ещё ,если моя команда находится долго в процессе обработки и не выводит мой запрос на экран, о чём это может говорить?

Это может говорить о том, что выборка получается очень большая.

Давайте мы с вами поступим иначе. Вы опишите здесь, структуру ваших таблиц. И объясните, какую конкретно выборку надо получить. А я попробую посоветовать вам правильный запрос.

Источник

1. Hi,

   On system :

   # ufw status
   Status: active

   To Action From
   — —— —-
   22 DENY Anywhere
   Apache DENY Anywhere
   80 ALLOW 10.206.20.0/24

   As one can see, te deny from everywhere to Apache messes with rule 3, the allow to port 80.

   How can I either:

   1) delete rule 2 and rule 3
   2) add a rule for app Apache that allows from 10.206.20.0/24

   Many thanks in advance.
   z

   PS. No, I don’t want to use another firewall. iptables is fine.

   ---

2. Re: UFW question
   

   Found out how to delete rule 3:

   # ufw delete allow from 10.206.20.0/24 to any port 80
   Rule deleted

   Still cannot work out the app rule:
   # ufw delete deny app apache
   ERROR: Need ‘to’ or ‘from’ clause
   # ufw delete deny app Apache
   ERROR: Need ‘to’ or ‘from’ clause
   # ufw delete deny app Apache to any port
   ERROR: Wrong number of arguments

   ---

3. Re: UFW question
   

   install GUFW for a grahical interface as it is easier to remove and add rules for UFW imo

   ---

4. Re: UFW question
   

   Originally Posted by Fast_Wyvern
   

   install GUFW for a grahical interface as it is easier to remove and add rules for UFW imo

   I did anticipate you reply…

   Sorry, when I wrote: PS. No, I don’t want to use another firewall. iptables is fine. I also meant to cover GUIs as well.

   Let me add.
   i) X is not installed.
   ii) These is a headless server.

   ---

5. Re: UFW question
   

   Sorry my assistance was not what you wanted

   ---

6. Re: UFW question
   

   Out of hope, I added the gufw to the server and Xdisplayed it back to another PC. GUFW cannot remove the rule. One can select the rule and try and delete it but the message «error performing operation» is given.

   As a workaround, I ran:
   ufw allow Apache

   and this dropped the deny rule so at least it is allowed. However, I think I shall steer away from ufw and use iptables directly. At least I shall have full control over what it does and I can confidently add and delete rules.

   ---

7. Re: UFW question
   

   Since ufw is (reportedly) a front end for iptables, I presume you should still be able to edit the iptables rules directly. Good Luck!

   ---

8. Re: UFW question
   

   Hmmm… from looking at the tutorial here, it looks like your syntax is a tad off…

   Code:

   # sudo ufw allow Apache
   Rule added
   
   # ufw status
   Status: active
   
   To Action From
   – —— —-
   22 LIMIT Anywhere
   Apache ALLOW Anywhere
   
   # sudo ufw delete allow Apache
   Rule deleted
   
   # ufw status
   Status: active
   
   To Action From
   – —— —-
   22 LIMIT Anywhere

   ---

sudo ufw [--dry-run] [delete] [insert NUM]  allow|deny|reject|limit  
[in|out on INTERFACE] [log|log-all] [proto protocol] 
[from ADDRESS [port PORT]][to ADDRESS [port PORT]]

ответ дан Rinzwind
23 March 2016 в 06:35

поделиться