Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:44:32 +1000 George at Clug wrote: > > (I do recall being taught programming using machine code, once I > reached an environment that used assembler, I only used machine code > for debugging. At that time I was also introduced to programming > using BASIC via punch cards.

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 2024-08-06, George at Clug wrote: > To disable port forwarding would this be a better method? "ceinture et bretelles" (I let you translate) > # echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward > # cat /etc/sysctl.conf > # Uncomment the next line to enable packet forwarding for IPv4 > #net.ipv4.ip_forwa

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 8/6/24 01:47, George at Clug wrote: On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 22:25 john doe wrote: On 8/5/24 12:50, George at Clug wrote: On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 17:25 Michel Verdier wrote: On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: YOu realy need to be intimate with nftables, you might want to consider

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 6/8/24 08:05, George at Clug wrote: Is it possible to be aware of all the ports required by systems/services like "AWS / Cloudflare / etc", such that it is possible to ensure any firewalls that are put in place do not inhibit the features of these systems? In AWS you have

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

-house hosted, systems where you had full control, and responsibility for all security implementations. I have not used the services of AWS or Cloudflare. I have only once used a CLOUD hosted VM (OpenStack) and it was not much different to using our in-house servers. Now I just tinker at home,

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:44:32 +1000 George at Clug wrote: > This morning, after thinking on these things I realise I am wrong. > > I am showing both my ignorance and my stupidity. > > "Times have changed", "That was then, this is now". My compliments on your willingness to do so. It is not ea

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 22:25 john doe wrote: > On 8/5/24 12:50, George at Clug wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 17:25 Michel Verdier wrote: > >> On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: > >> > >>> I think I finally have success (had to fix way too many typos). > >>> > >>> Please review,

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Tuesday, 06-08-2024 at 04:12 Charles Curley wrote: > On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 01:12:08 +1000 > George at Clug wrote: > > > It would be nice if systems were not so complex that they required > > frontends to be usable. > > Perhaps it would be nice. But that's not the way of the world. I wrote >

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 01:12:08 +1000 George at Clug wrote: > It would be nice if systems were not so complex that they required > frontends to be usable. Perhaps it would be nice. But that's not the way of the world. I wrote 6502 assembly code and hand-assembled it way back when. I was very glad t

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 21:52 Michel Verdier wrote: > On 2024-08-05, George at Clug wrote: > > > Down below is the output of the translation commands for my Iptables > > commands. Interesting but again, I will need to learn what this means, > > it does not look self explanatory. But hopefully

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 22:25 john doe wrote: > On 8/5/24 12:50, George at Clug wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 17:25 Michel Verdier wrote: > >> On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: > >> > >>> I think I finally have success (had to fix way too many typos). > >>> > >>> Please review,

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

ure what you mean by "you can't just block them; likewise, new protocols and the like (which, yes, are focused to "the web", but details) will just fail if you only allow certain ports to be reached." The whole idea of blocking ports other that the ports required for the

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

WS / Cloudflare / etc. that you can't just block them; likewise, new protocols and the like (which, yes, are focused to "the web", but details) will just fail if you only allow certain ports to be reached. As for the (snipped) analogies you made -- they more addressed the ideas of 'se

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 8/5/24 12:50, George at Clug wrote: On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 17:25 Michel Verdier wrote: On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: I think I finally have success (had to fix way too many typos). Please review, and please comment if it can be improved. Don't fix typo and instead rewrite your

VM, wifi, NAT (was: Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB)

On 05/08/2024 17:50, George at Clug wrote: I am also a bit concerned about the statement "table ip nat", I do not want [e.g. need] any Network Address Translation occurring. Re: VirtualBox (VB) and Window

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 2024-08-05, George at Clug wrote: > Down below is the output of the translation commands for my Iptables > commands. Interesting but again, I will need to learn what this means, > it does not look self explanatory. But hopefully, like everything > computer related, it is usually not that compl

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Monday, 05-08-2024 at 17:25 Michel Verdier wrote: > On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: > > > I think I finally have success (had to fix way too many typos). > > > > Please review, and please comment if it can be improved. > > Don't fix typo and instead rewrite your rules with nftables > h

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: > I think I finally have success (had to fix way too many typos). > > Please review, and please comment if it can be improved. Don't fix typo and instead rewrite your rules with nftables https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Moving_from_iptables_to

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 2024-08-04, George at Clug wrote: > I do like the idea of blocking all outbound connections, and only > opening ports that are required for whatever services I want to use. I do the same. > For servers I often do, but for workstations, sadly I am often lazy and > default to allowing all outgo

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Sunday, 04-08-2024 at 18:48 Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 3:12 AM George at Clug wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, 04-08-2024 at 16:15 john doe wrote: > > > On 8/4/24 06:48, jeremy ardley wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/08/2024 12:26 pm, George at Clug wrote: > > > >> > > > >

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 4/8/24 16:11, George at Clug wrote: I do like the idea of blocking all outbound connections, and only opening ports that are required for whatever services I want to use. For servers I often do, but for workstations, sadly I am often lazy and default to allowing all outgoing traffic. Let

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 3:12 AM George at Clug wrote: > > > On Sunday, 04-08-2024 at 16:15 john doe wrote: > > On 8/4/24 06:48, jeremy ardley wrote: > > > > > > On 4/08/2024 12:26 pm, George at Clug wrote: > > >> > > >> If I go to the local coffee shop and connect my laptop to their WiFi, > > >> w

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On Sunday, 04-08-2024 at 16:15 john doe wrote: > On 8/4/24 06:48, jeremy ardley wrote: > > > > On 4/08/2024 12:26 pm, George at Clug wrote: > >> > >> If I go to the local coffee shop and connect my laptop to their WiFi, > >> which incoming and now outgoing ports should I have blocked to ensure >

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 8/4/24 06:48, jeremy ardley wrote: On 4/08/2024 12:26 pm, George at Clug wrote: If I go to the local coffee shop and connect my laptop to their WiFi, which incoming and now outgoing ports should I have blocked to ensure that no nefarious people are able to communicate with my laptop The r

Re: Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

On 4/08/2024 12:26 pm, George at Clug wrote: If I go to the local coffee shop and connect my laptop to their WiFi, which incoming and now outgoing ports should I have blocked to ensure that no nefarious people are able to communicate with my laptop The rules for public networks are very si

Internet facing Firewalls mDNS UPnP SMB

n/doc/EDOC1100297670 High-Risk Ports: What Are the Common High-Risk Ports and How to Block Them https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/topic/preventing-smb-traffic-from-lateral-connections-and-entering-or-leaving-the-network-c0541db7-2244-0dce-18fd-14a3ddeb282a Perimeter hardware and appliance

Re: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 09:33:57PM +0800, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 at 21:22, wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 09:17:17PM +0800, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming > > wrote: > > > Subject: I can confirm that Fortigate fir

Re: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux

On Donnerstag, 22. Juni 2023 15:33:57 CEST Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > I think Fortinet wouldn't say. They are required to ;-) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 at 21:22, wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 09:17:17PM +0800, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming > wrote: > > Subject: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on > > Linux > > > > Good day from Singapore, > > [...] &g

Re: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 09:17:17PM +0800, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > Subject: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux > > Good day from Singapore, [...] > Do you guys know which Linux distro Fortigate firewalls are based on? > I wou

I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux

Subject: I can confirm that Fortigate firewalls are definitely based on Linux Good day from Singapore, These few days, I have discovered that the output of the Fortigate firewall CLI command "diag hardware sysinfo cpu" is exactly the same as the output of the command "cat /proc/cp

Re: firewalls

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 7:22 AM deloptes wrote: > Dan Ritter wrote: > > > After install you have a powerful L3 firewall system available to > > you, but not configured to block anything. > > > > There are two command-line interfaces to it, iptables and > > nftables. nftables is the newer interface,

Re: firewalls

Dan Ritter wrote: > After install you have a powerful L3 firewall system available to > you, but not configured to block anything. > > There are two command-line interfaces to it, iptables and > nftables. nftables is the newer interface, but iptables has more > documentation written. > > You als

Re: firewalls

Hi. On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 07:11:12AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > riveravaldez wrote: > > > > If I can ask: which is the situation, in this aspect, in a plain > > plain/straightforward Debian (net)installation? Let's say: what's the > > by-default setting of the system? > > > After ins

Re: firewalls

riveravaldez wrote: > > If I can ask: which is the situation, in this aspect, in a plain > plain/straightforward Debian (net)installation? Let's say: what's the > by-default setting of the system? After install you have a powerful L3 firewall system available to you, but not configured to block

Re: firewalls

On Ma, 04 aug 20, 22:56:21, riveravaldez wrote: > > If I can ask: which is the situation, in this aspect, in a plain > plain/straightforward Debian (net)installation? Let's say: what's the > by-default setting of the system? There is no firewall configured by default in Debian. The configuration

Re: firewalls

On 2020-08-05 00:51, Dan Ritter wrote: mick crane wrote: I've never really understood firewalls. I think the idea is that they don't let anything in that wasn't requested but if you go on a website there are so many hundreds of scripts looking at this and that who knows wha

Re: firewalls

On 8/4/20, Dan Ritter wrote: > mick crane wrote: >> I've never really understood firewalls. I think the idea is that they >> don't >> let anything in that wasn't requested but if you go on a website there >> are >> so many hundreds of scripts lo

Re: firewalls

mick crane wrote: > I've never really understood firewalls. I think the idea is that they don't > let anything in that wasn't requested but if you go on a website there are > so many hundreds of scripts looking at this and that who knows what happens. I notice you didn&#x

Re: firewalls

mick crane wrote: > I've never really understood firewalls. I think the idea is that they > don't let anything in that wasn't requested but if you go on a website > there are so many hundreds of scripts looking at this and that who knows > what happens. this is a good

firewalls

I've never really understood firewalls. I think the idea is that they don't let anything in that wasn't requested but if you go on a website there are so many hundreds of scripts looking at this and that who knows what happens. mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:55 AM, Celejar wrote: Yes: http://m19s28.dyndns.org/iblech/nat-traverse/#technique General discussion: http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-firewalls-747197.html Celejar Thanks! Interesting stuff... Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

he general idea is this: > > Two clients, A and B, both behind NAT firewalls. Server, S, with a public > IP, i.e. *not* behind NAT. > > A calls S and says I want to talk to B. (This is possible because the call > is originated inside A's NAT) > At approximately the sam

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

Alberto, What you want to do is possible. In particular, skype and bittorrent do it. As I understand it, they make use of a server with a public IP address. I'm not going to get it exactly right, but the general idea is this: Two clients, A and B, both behind NAT firewalls. Server, S,

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

> That looks like you have to somehow be logged into both hosts and run > nat-traverse on each. But it looks interesting. Firewalls can track and block UDP (create state) even if it is a stateless protocol too, so you may have to have control of the gatewa

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM, alberto fuentes wrote: > Actually I got the idea from filetea [0] > I just checked it out. Its less magical than I thought. It *does* use the server to route all packets :(

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

hine back up I will try it and report back ;) > > > > Both computer A and B know about Server. > > If both A and B can get to Server then it is very easy to just hop > through Server to get to the other. > The server is just a convenience since both machines are behin

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > alberto fuentes wrote: > > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) > > > > To make it a little more clear. Both computer A and B know about Server. > > Right now I use openvpn to bring all the computers together into th

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, green wrote: > Lars Nooden wrote at 2013-04-19 10:35 -0500: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote: > > > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) > > > > To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at >

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

green wrote: > Lars Nooden wrote: > > alberto fuentes wrote: > > > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) > > > > To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at > > least on of them be publicly available even if the other is blocked behind > >

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

Lars Nooden wrote at 2013-04-19 10:35 -0500: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote: > > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) > > To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at > least on of them be publicly available even

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

alberto fuentes wrote: > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) > > To make it a little more clear. Both computer A and B know about Server. > Right now I use openvpn to bring all the computers together into the same > network. But it seems too much overhead being both co

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote: > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at least on of them be publicly available even if the other is blocked behind a firewall. Depending

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote: > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city) > To make it a little more clear. Both computer A and B know about Server. Right now I use openvpn to bring all the computers together into the same network. But it seems to

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

uter in my city opening ports in the firewall for every specific case. And I usually do so. But i was looking for a generic way to use in a third party (openvpn server overaseas) to just handle the establishment of the connection somehow avoiding all firewalls. Some way for B to know I want to estab

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

Hello, Bob Proulx a écrit : > > You first mentioned connecting to a server so I guessed ssh. That was > apparently not what you were asking about. Now you mention packages. > I could guess that you want to set up an apt proxy of some sort. Is > that what you are asking about? A way to set up

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

alberto fuentes wrote at 2013-04-18 16:18 -0500: > Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work > > I know I can connect using the third server, but I just want to use the > server to establish the connection Perhaps the nat-traverse package is of interest to you. signature.as

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

alberto fuentes wrote: > That way all the packages would be forwarded via the server. > > The server is overseas. Im trying to connect to a computer in my city. > Packages have to travel and comeback. I was hoping some kind of magic that > would allow me to use the server overseas *just* to establ

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > alberto fuentes wrote: > > Subject: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls > > using a third server > > Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work > > > > I know I can co

Re: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

alberto fuentes wrote: > Subject: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls > using a third server > Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work > > I know I can connect using the third server, but I just want to use the > server to establish t

connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls using a third server

Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work I know I can connect using the third server, but I just want to use the server to establish the connection Any ideas :)

Re: a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

Matej Kosik a écrit : >>> I am experiencing some deterministic packet drop: >>> - when I tcpreplay on "lo" some pcap (0.pcap) file, >>> that traffic does not reach listening applications > > I have discovered the following regularity: > - if source IP address in given pcap is one of "my" IP addr

Re: a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

On 11/28/2012 12:04 PM, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:54:04AM +, Matej Kosik wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am experiencing some deterministic packet drop: >> - when I tcpreplay on "lo" some pcap (0.pcap) file, >> that traffic does not reach listening applications >> - when I change

Re: a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

On 11/29/2012 12:21 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Hello, > > Matej Kosik a écrit : >> >> I am experiencing some deterministic packet drop: >> - when I tcpreplay on "lo" some pcap (0.pcap) file, >> that traffic does not reach listening applications >> - when I change source IP address from whateve

Re: a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

Hello, Matej Kosik a écrit : > > I am experiencing some deterministic packet drop: > - when I tcpreplay on "lo" some pcap (0.pcap) file, > that traffic does not reach listening applications > - when I change source IP address from whatever it was to, e.g., > 10.0.10.6, 10.0.10.7 etc, Why the

Re: a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

On Mi, 28 nov 12, 11:54:04, Matej Kosik wrote: > The only thing which could be causing thing I was aware of was > "iptables". However, when I apt-get removed it, nothing changed. iptables is just the tool to make changes to the kernel firewall. If you suspect troubles due to the firewall you are

Re: a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:54:04AM +, Matej Kosik wrote: > Hi, > > I am experiencing some deterministic packet drop: > - when I tcpreplay on "lo" some pcap (0.pcap) file, > that traffic does not reach listening applications > - when I change source IP address from whatever it was to, e.g., >

a question about firewalls (or whatever else that might cause packet drop)

Hi, I am experiencing some deterministic packet drop: - when I tcpreplay on "lo" some pcap (0.pcap) file, that traffic does not reach listening applications - when I change source IP address from whatever it was to, e.g., 10.0.10.6, 10.0.10.7 etc, then when I try to replay the modified pcap

Re: Re(2): openvpn in spite of firewalls

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:16:42 -0700 PETER EASTHOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Not that I know of.  Is there an efficient & reliable > way to search for a UDP port? Nmap scans UDP ports with the -sU option. [snip] Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP)

Re: Re(2): openvpn in spite of firewalls

On Jul 19, 2007, at 9:16 AM, PETER EASTHOPE wrote: The socket concept is sound. Yet where administrators insist on closing ports & etc. indiscriminately, the concept is defeated. I'm afraid that your software will become a necessity in many environments. I don't know what sort of environment

Re(2): openvpn in spite of firewalls

27;m afraid that your software will become a necessity in many environments. kj> ... any holes in the firewalls for UDP? Not that I know of.  Is there an efficient & reliable way to search for a UDP port? kj> Since the firewalls allow SSH through, you can always run a PPP link over ss

Re: openvpn in spite of firewalls

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 10:15:32AM -0700, PETER EASTHOPE wrote: > Folk, > > I've installed openvpn on two systems and tried some > configurations including Example 2 from the man page. For those without access to the man page: Uses an UDP tunnel with static key security. >

Re: openvpn in spite of firewalls

On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 10:57:10AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2007, at 10:15 AM, PETER EASTHOPE wrote: > >> Folk, >> >> I've installed openvpn on two systems and tried some >> configurations including Example 2 from the man page. >> Seem

Re: openvpn in spite of firewalls

On Jul 18, 2007, at 10:15 AM, PETER EASTHOPE wrote: Folk, I've installed openvpn on two systems and tried some configurations including Example 2 from the man page. Seems that firewalls block successfully (sarcasm). Nevertheless, http, ssh, ftp and a few other protocols work. If you co

openvpn in spite of firewalls

Folk, I've installed openvpn on two systems and tried some configurations including Example 2 from the man page. Seems that firewalls block successfully (sarcasm).  Nevertheless, http, ssh, ftp and a few other protocols work. Is there any chance of using one of the open ports for the t

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 09:38:32AM +, Michael Fothergill wrote: > > What I would say is that there is never a precise one to one match between > what is in a manual and what you need to do to use a piece of software. If you can't do it without the software you won't be able to with the soft

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

From: "P. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: firewalls and installation stuff Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:12:58 -0700 Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:37:19PM -0700, P. Johnson wrote: >> An

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:37:19PM -0700, P. Johnson wrote: >> Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:08:33AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >> >> >> >> And don't take this personally, but as a piece of friendly >> > [...] >> > >> >>

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:37:19PM -0700, P. Johnson wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:08:33AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >> > >> And don't take this personally, but as a piece of friendly > > [...] > > > >> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-question

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

"Michael Fothergill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would that have been enough to include and fire up some kind of > firewall or do I need to install that separately? > > If so what firewall would you recommend and what aptitude command will > fetch me it? > > How do I know that the firewall is on

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

do with Windows, the desktop environment trying to be an operating system. > Would that have been enough to include and fire up some kind of firewall > or do I need to install that separately? Not needed. People use Debian to create firewalls. Just don't install any software that yo

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:08:33AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >> >> And don't take this personally, but as a piece of friendly > [...] > >> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> > > I hope that didn't come across as harsh as it now looks to m

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:21 +, Michael Fothergill wrote: > Would that have been enough to include and fire up some kind of firewall or > do I need to install that separately? > > If so what firewall would you recommend and what aptitude command will fetch > me it? > > How do I know that the

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:26:41PM +, Michael Fothergill wrote: > > > > >From: Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > >Subject: Re: firewalls and installation stuff > >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:43:05 -07

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

From: Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: firewalls and installation stuff Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:43:05 -0700 On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:08:33AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > And don't take this personall

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:21 +, Michael Fothergill wrote: > Dear Debian folks, > > [...] > The broadband connection and my browser work fine. > > Would that have been enough to include and fire up some kind of firewall or > do I need to install that separately? > > If so what firewall woul

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:08:33AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > And don't take this personally, but as a piece of friendly [...] > http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > I hope that didn't come across as harsh as it now looks to me. A signature.asc Description: Digital s

Re: firewalls and installation stuff....

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:21:40PM +, Michael Fothergill wrote: > Dear Debian folks, [...] > > Would that have been enough to include and fire up some kind of firewall or > do I need to install that separately? > linux has a built in "firewall" in the kernel. commonly called Netfilter and i

firewalls and installation stuff....

Dear Debian folks, I have now got Debian Sarge 3.1 r3 up and running on my 1200MHz AMD Duron machine with two hard drives of 20 and 40 GB and a 15 inch cheap Belinea monitor. I also have a broadband connection and the 15 CD set of official Sarge stuff. I installed the base system plus XWin

Re: Recommended Firewalls

Brett writes: > I for one would not trust "Shields Up". Firstly I believe it is targeted > at MS OS's and secondly I wouldn't even trust it for that as it only > scans a few (well known) ports (IIRC). It just runs Nmap. You can choose to have it scan all ports. Ignore his silly nonsense about "s

Re: Recommended Firewalls

Clyde Wilson wrote: When I run "shieldsup" at grc.com it says my firewall sucks. I would like to plug obvious leaks in my home system... I for one would not trust "Shields Up". Firstly I believe it is targeted at MS OS's and secondly I wouldn't even trust it for that as it only scans a few (

Re: Recommended Firewalls

How about 'Firestarter' if using something Gui based is not a problem for you. It's simple and efficient for a single machine and sort of reminds me of early ZoneAlarm back in the Win98 days (but without the yellow!). Good enough for a home computer if you are not running a server or have more comp

Re: Recommended Firewalls

That looks easier, when I tried it was a few years ago and I had to use a port something in the 10,000's range to talk to it. That was on redhat too before I found out how to install debian. On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Bart van den Heuvel wrote: Hmmm... Webmin is pretty easy to setup :-) Should b

Re: Recommended Firewalls

Jude DaShiell wrote: > So what happens if you can use debian but can't use any G.U.I. since > none of the G.U.I. will talk yet? Is there a console equivalent for > guardog? I'm totally blind and when I use a debian equipped computer I > do it alone. I'm a bit surprized not to see someone ment

Re: Recommended Firewalls

/usr/sbin/iptables(sorry - couldn´t resist ;-)but seriously ... wirte your own iptables script.This ensures you know what your firewall is doing and probably you will learn something that way, too.I tried about 10 different guis and prebuilt scripts before i started to write my own skript. After th

Re: Recommended Firewalls

Jude DaShiell writes: > So what happens if you can use debian but can't use any G.U.I. since none > of the G.U.I. will talk yet? Is there a console equivalent for guardog? > I'm totally blind and when I use a debian equipped computer I do it > alone. I like Ipmasq. No GUI. -- John Hasler --

Re: Recommended Firewalls

Hmmm... Webmin is pretty easy to setup :-) Should be as easy as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp]# gunzip webmin-1.260.tar.gz [EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp]# tar xf webmin-1.260.tar [EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp]# cd webmin-1.260 [EMAIL PROTECTED] /tmp/webmin-1.260]# ./setup.sh /usr/local/webmin And you don't need any

Re: Recommended Firewalls

I had tried setting up webmine in the past and couldn't get the setup working completely. I think that may have been because I wasn't using a java browser to talk to it then. Thanks much for these firewall suggestions. On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Bart van den Heuvel wrote: You can try Shorewall,

Re: Recommended Firewalls

You can try Shorewall, that's console based and if you've setup webmin you can also manage it using a webinterface. If you are more in to colors you can have fwbuilder... It's a gui based firewall configurator that compiles shellscripts that setup iptables. Nice thing about fwbuilder is that you

Re: Recommended Firewalls

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 03:00:11AM -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote: > So what happens if you can use debian but can't use any G.U.I. since none > of the G.U.I. will talk yet? Is there a console equivalent for guardog? > I'm totally blind and when I use a debian equipped computer I do it alone. > ap

  1   2   3   >