From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [RFD] iptables: mangle table obsoletes filter table Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:53:59 -0400 Message-ID: <26984.1192942439@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <200710120031.42805.a1426z@gawab.com> <200710200640.02012.a1426z@gawab.com> <26556.1192855654@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200710210731.58959.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1192942439_3691P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bill Davidsen , Patrick McHardy , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Boldi Return-path: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:31:58 +0300." <200710210731.58959.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1192942439_3691P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:31:58 +0300, Al Boldi said: > > Well, for example to stop any transient packets being forwarded. You could > > probably hack around this using mark's, but you can't stop the implied > > route lookup, unless you stop it in prerouting. > > Basically, you have one big unintended gaping whole in your firewall, that > could easily be exploited for DoS attacks at the least, unless you put in > specific rules to limit this. OK, the light bulb just went on... ;) We actually *do* have an issue with the flip side of that - it's a frikking pain to make packets that show up on eth0 with a destination of 127.0.0.1 go away un-noticed - or at least I'm assuming it's the flip side of the same issue. --==_Exmh_1192942439_3691P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFHGttncC3lWbTT17ARAisTAKCHiAcF87qCKjCKtrQ2DNnYRVB80QCg3Qhy GkVtjY0WchJuTHYb/VNnF2c= =O+mL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1192942439_3691P--