All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* droping too many ports
@ 2004-09-23 20:45 Askar
  2004-09-23 20:51 ` Gavin Hamill
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Askar @ 2004-09-23 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netfilter

hi all

what if I do (and im doing this from last two hours ;))

iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP
iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP

yes I am Droping too many ports at once, (actually its default ACCEPT
machine), as far I know not a single well known service is running on
port above 31000?

Actaully I duno what to do coz im watching (through tcpdump )lot of
clients accessing higher ports, thats why I puts these rules.

iptables -L -nvx  gives too many counts whenever I checked, especailly
numbers are very high for UDP "udp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP"


Im i doing right thing? (see im getting counts on it )
Am I droping some ligitimate packets? 
or ours clients (sitting on M$ OS) are infected?

may I extend the rules to INPUT and OUTPUT ?

regards
tired :(
-- 
(after bouncing head on desk for days trying to get mine working, I'll make
yer life a little easier)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: droping too many ports
  2004-09-23 20:45 droping too many ports Askar
@ 2004-09-23 20:51 ` Gavin Hamill
  2004-09-23 21:01 ` Jason Opperisano
  2004-09-23 21:14 ` Aleksandar Milivojevic
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gavin Hamill @ 2004-09-23 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netfilter

On Thursday 23 September 2004 21:45, Askar wrote:
> hi all
>
> what if I do (and im doing this from last two hours ;))
>
> iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP
> iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP
>
> yes I am Droping too many ports at once, (actually its default ACCEPT
> machine), 

I think you answered your own question - why not make the default policy DROP, 
and then just permit the services you want?

gdh


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: droping too many ports
  2004-09-23 20:45 droping too many ports Askar
  2004-09-23 20:51 ` Gavin Hamill
@ 2004-09-23 21:01 ` Jason Opperisano
  2004-09-23 21:14 ` Aleksandar Milivojevic
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Opperisano @ 2004-09-23 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netfilter

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 16:45, Askar wrote:
> hi all
> 
> what if I do (and im doing this from last two hours ;))
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP
> iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP
> 

uh...depending on your other rules--you could be dropping tons o'
legitimate traffic; i.e, inbound replies to your outbound requests.

how's about showing us:

  iptables -vnxL FORWARD

a better approach (in general) is to set the policy of FORWARD to DROP,
and only allow through that which you need to allow through.  it keeps
you from getting tempted to do what you just did, as well.

-j

-- 
Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: droping too many ports
  2004-09-23 20:45 droping too many ports Askar
  2004-09-23 20:51 ` Gavin Hamill
  2004-09-23 21:01 ` Jason Opperisano
@ 2004-09-23 21:14 ` Aleksandar Milivojevic
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Aleksandar Milivojevic @ 2004-09-23 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netfilter

Askar wrote:
> hi all
> 
> what if I do (and im doing this from last two hours ;))
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP
> iptables -A FORWARD -p udp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP

[snip]

> iptables -L -nvx  gives too many counts whenever I checked, especailly
> numbers are very high for UDP "udp --dport 31000:65500 -j DROP"

Depending on your other rules this might not be good idea.  Here's an 
example why.  If client connects to say your web server, it may look 
something like this:

  client sport 54321 to server dport 80     for incoming packets
  server sport 80    to client dport 54321  for outgoing packets

As you can guess by now, your rules are blocking outgoing packets of an 
perfectly legal connection.

BTW, you should really consider setting default policy to DROP, and 
allow only what you need.

-- 
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca>    Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator                           1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276                     Winnipeg, MB  R3T 1L7


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-23 21:14 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-23 20:45 droping too many ports Askar
2004-09-23 20:51 ` Gavin Hamill
2004-09-23 21:01 ` Jason Opperisano
2004-09-23 21:14 ` Aleksandar Milivojevic

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.