Re: Implications of a permissive FORWARD chain

[Mark Fox <mark.fox@gmail.com>]

Amos Jeffries <squid3 <at> treenet.co.nz> writes:

> Like you surmised earlier the implications for the client hosts is the 
> same as if your forwarding host was not there at all.

That is a salient point, Amos.

In my case, it can be argued that that's exactly what is desired. But I
agree that there are some rules that can be added to tighten things up
without unduly hampering someone who wants to add a VM or container in the
future. Spoofing can be curtailed, for example.

Thanks.