ipfw pipes + firewall
kaeru at pd.jaring.my
Fri Nov 28 22:29:18 PST 2003
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 06:45, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> > 00100 83 11350 pipe 1 ip from any to any out
> > 00200 93 11266 pipe 2 ip from any to any in
> > 00300 0 0 check-state
> > 00400 0 0 deny tcp from any to any established
> > 01400 103 14855 allow tcp from any to me dst-port 22 in setup keep-state
> > ... more firewall rules which are being matched
> I find your 400 rule very strage. Rule 400 souldn't apply because they
> are passed by 300 (this one doens't have a counter :( ).
I'm following the example given by ipfw(8). Rule 0400 is apparently
supposed to block any non dynamic rules. Does rule 300 have a counter?
I've followed both ipfw(8) and
I"m using the example from the article for my pppoe connection at home.
> For rule 1400 the dst-port is wronly placed. Port are (or can be) given
> after the ip without any marker. I would replace 1400 with:
> allow tcp from any to me 22 in
> allow tcp from me 22 to any out
> No need to have dynamic rules here so place it before 300
This sounds right, it would cut down on overhead of additional dynamic
rules. So making public ports rules without dynamic rules is better?
Digging in the archives, Matthew Seaman said that dynamic rules should
be safer, but I'm not sure if it applies for my case.
I'm no security expert, so thanks for the insight.
FreeBSD 5.2-BETA i386
2:24pm up 11:29, 3 users, load averages: 0.22, 0.44, 0.66
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20031129/30715b89/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-questions