> "LB" == Lars Bahner writes:
LB> 2009/9/17 :
LB> These are very simple firewall-rules and they will keep on working just
fine.
>> OK, thanks. I can breath a sigh of relief.
>>
>> So the warning was just "for everyone in the area, not only the target"?
LB> Yes.
I see. Sort of like "we'll s
You people are lucky you have me on board.
Because I am a very simple minded person.
All I know is I use some thing documented there on the iptables man
page, and I get a warning. I noticed that warning because I happened to
look in /var/log/syslog one day.
The warning says something worse will
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> This bug should *NOT* be closed.
That's debatable. I believe it should be closed and I closed it.
> Getting a deprecation warning for a simple and common use of
> iptables is a bug somewhere, either in iptables or the kernel.
You certai
On Sep 16, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> This bug should *NOT* be closed. Getting a deprecation warning for a simple
> and
> common use of iptables is a bug somewhere, either in iptables or the kernel.
Sometimes life is just not how we would like it to be, and by accepting
this you could save much ange
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 14, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
>
>> LB> You could file this a a wishlist bug report against the iptables
>> LB> package, and see if the maintainer wish to add this file (or a larger
>> LB> /etc/sysctl.d/iptables.conf with some sane defaults).
> What makes you believe
LB> Prey tell, what is wrong with maintainers of for example iptables,
LB> providing a conffile with samples (which may even be commented out)
LB> which they can reference to in their documentation, where they
LB> comment on the different settings?
LB> This is what we do with /etc/sysctl.conf toda
2009/9/15 Marco d'Itri :
> On Sep 15, Lars Bahner wrote:
>
>> Prey tell, what is wrong with maintainers of for example iptables,
>> providing a conffile
>> with samples (which may even be commented out) which they can
>> reference to in their documentation, where they comment on the
>> different s
On Sep 15, Lars Bahner wrote:
> Prey tell, what is wrong with maintainers of for example iptables,
> providing a conffile
> with samples (which may even be commented out) which they can
> reference to in their documentation, where they comment on the
> different settings?
That it duplicates the s
2009/9/15 Marco d'Itri :
> On Sep 14, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
>
>> LB> You could file this a a wishlist bug report against the iptables
>> LB> package, and see if the maintainer wish to add this file (or a larger
>> LB> /etc/sysctl.d/iptables.conf with some sane defaults).
> What makes you beli
On Sep 14, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> LB> You could file this a a wishlist bug report against the iptables
> LB> package, and see if the maintainer wish to add this file (or a larger
> LB> /etc/sysctl.d/iptables.conf with some sane defaults).
What makes you believe that the kernel defaults are
retitle 526521 add /etc/sysctl.d/iptables.conntrack.accounting.conf
severity 526521 wishlist
thanks
> "LB" == Lars Bahner writes:
LB> You don't really need to file a bug. You need to add a file
LB> /etc/sysctl.d/iptables.conntrack.accounting.conf
LB> which should contain the line:
LB> net
I need some help with
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526521
I want to know the proper package to assign this bug to.
All I know is we are supposed to use iptables recipies to protect our
computers, and when I use
# iptables -A b -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
in /
12 matches
Mail list logo
