ure enough i think. I
posted the latest firewall conf already but there is one question remaining:
With a port scan with nmap -sS TCP SYN ip-address. Every port will give
"filtered" is it possible to hide the port totally so no syn will be
returned by the system.
--
redhat-list mailing li
At 21:50 9/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:
I need FTP my clients need to upload there webpages because the server is a
part of a hosting company. I don't want to give anonymous access to anyone.
Every user is know to me, and is chrooted to her home directorie they can't
come outside this directory even wi
I need FTP my clients need to upload there webpages because the server is a
part of a hosting company. I don't want to give anonymous access to anyone.
Every user is know to me, and is chrooted to her home directorie they can't
come outside this directory even with a symlink access is denied. And a
> Hi,
>
> Thanks i modified my firewall now it works for me. I made the following
> entries:
>
>
> :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] # Accept all forwarded packets. In my case there
> is no NAT, so this is ok.
> :INPUT DROP [0:0] # Drop all incoming packets.
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] # Accept all outgoing packets
Hi,
Thanks i modified my firewall now it works for me. I made the following
entries:
:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] # Accept all forwarded packets. In my
case there
is no NAT, so this is ok.
:INPUT DROP [0:0] # Drop all incoming packets.
:O
At 07:16 9/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I have a stupid question for you. When I installed 7.2 (later 7.3) I chose
ipchains rather than iptables so that I could use my old 6.x firewall. What
must I do to switch to iptables?
There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. You can always tell a
stup
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" wrote:
> At 15:14 9/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >Okay, you're doing a bunch of stuff with which I am unfamiliar (especially
> >that --state NEW,INVALID stuff), but there are a couple of things that I
> >think could help you...
>
> Please allow me to suggest that you both take a go
At 21:44 9/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I really appreciate the suggestion, and I've seen shorewall mentioned here
before. However, I've got other reasons that dictate that I learn the ins
and outs of iptables and NAT, down to the nitty-gritty details. *grin*
OK... Shorewall as a learning tool, then.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 15:14 9/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >Okay, you're doing a bunch of stuff with which I am unfamiliar (especially
> >that --state NEW,INVALID stuff), but there are a couple of things that I
> >think could help you...
>
> Please allow me to suggest that
At 15:14 9/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Okay, you're doing a bunch of stuff with which I am unfamiliar (especially
that --state NEW,INVALID stuff), but there are a couple of things that I
think could help you...
Please allow me to suggest that you both take a good look at Shorewall
(http://www.shorewa
> My conf looks like this:
>
> # Generated by iptables-save v1.2.7a on Sun Jul 13 21:22:53 2003
> *nat
> :PREROUTING ACCEPT [38:2291]
> :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [10:1360]
> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [10:1360]
> COMMIT
> # Completed on Sun Jul 13 21:22:53 2003
> # Generated by iptables-save v1.2.7a on Sun Jul 13 21
> Hi,
>
> I'm using redhat 9.0 and the latest webmin. Now i want to configure the
> firewall that the ip addresses 213.132.174.75, 127.0.0.1, 80.242.234.70
and
> 62.131.19.121 with webmin only can access port 1 tcp/udp. I only get
one
> ip address working not all. Any body any ideas?
What is t
Hi,
I'm using redhat 9.0 and the latest webmin. Now i want to configure the
firewall that the ip addresses 213.132.174.75, 127.0.0.1, 80.242.234.70 and
62.131.19.121 with webmin only can access port 1 tcp/udp. I only get one
ip address working not all. Any body any ideas?
--
redhat-list mai
13 matches
Mail list logo
