(Yet Another) Home Networking Question
wegster at mindcore.net
Mon Jan 12 18:46:50 PST 2004
Rishi Chopra wrote:
> Perhaps someone can help me with this small part of rc.firewall:
> # This is a prototype setup for a simple firewall. Configure this
> # machine as a named server and ntp server, and point all the
> # on the inside at this machine for those services.
> # set these to your outside interface network and netmask and ip
> # set these to your inside interface network and netmask and ip
> I'm curious about the difference between 'inet' and 'iip', what each
> one stands for, and how to configure 'onet/oip' if the outside
> interface network is configured via DHCP.
> I'm also curious about this little snippet (under the 'simple' profile):
> # Everything else is denied by default, unless the
> # IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT option is set in your kernel
> # config file.
> What happens if this option is set in my kernel config file? Can I
> safely comment out this line and use the 'simple' profile without
> affecting natd?
[original questions responses snipped]
inet = network, which is in part defined by your netmask- eg a netmask
of 255.255.255.0 says that the first 3 octets are defining your network,
and the last 3 define the individual host, thus a netmask of
255.255.255.0 allows for 256 hosts in theory, although .255 is the
broadcast address, 0 is the network....
oip = actual IP address, which is a combination of the network you're on
(192.0.2.0 in this case) and your host identifier (.1 in this case), so
I'm sure there are a million TCP/IP tutorials available on google, but
doing a search on 'netmask' should explain anything I didn't do so well
Presumaby, IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT allows all packets throug the
firewall as the default ruleset, which means the majority of your rules
would become 'deny rules' to reject specific ports/packets
etc..otherwise it's reversed, rejecting any/all packets unless you
explictly allow them. Similar behavior to the functionality of the
hosts.allow and hosts.deny files....
Obviously, denying everything explicitly not allowed by your ruleset is
more secure....however, where you're unsure what ports (and protocols)
specific applications or services use, expect to wind up spending a fair
amount of time in refining your ruleset until all services you want
allowed are in fact passed by the firewall.
Accepting everything other than what you explicitly reject is better
than no firewall, and isn't a bad starting point, combined with the
output of netstat to monitor connections on a server, figuring out what
traffic you absolutely must allow, and then eventually converting the
system to a 'reject all' setup (after creating the 'allow ruleset' of
More information about the freebsd-questions