From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E58A1DB124 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741781261; cv=none; b=Kxn6e+AYFhL7OdD41c15zESnLcWzqrVI079BpjBJQck6A4FHfBJgVn7/83LMgpsxEA/Fk04J+7InYYC0/QA08bQpX0c7NGekbbF0kaTI+KnDDKMAcLWmAOBqKS/uabV1+1Z3td20UjWzhdbBCTA8PKWVZnL2sPWiPOh2/ZHroz8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741781261; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G8WBgeHIjpKIb7+tAj4X0moXUg+mY3aQ8faKv2WXBEE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FZR/Wug/7lSzoVe8tfltLU5nc/F6trnflNB/UKCDGq4Jy7xaztAE2cveV8cYnYAvzwBVNgudB2DBDqbaBlLjWpJgHK6Pwnoq750C2rTVZbQBcP+T5kmlb7lrHvagFdOEKskg0K/NwG/8inol9OavKpRZW1+K1u8B9ofPkwSPgOs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=jJrzQORS; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=jJrzQORS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="jJrzQORS"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="jJrzQORS" Received: by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix, from userid 109) id 80EEE6027F; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:07:35 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1741781255; bh=28W9MFdgXEWLsuXZMH9bYWiYtaVi0/G0aGaS2cM1at4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jJrzQORShKdds4jqiU7GzwMQ/X1OK4mBJ2sKzDS9l/53Wq1ZGmUaQ7+fn3INQKtnP 6bL+8ILCrUBZNsrrDTRYxr2S0OhgnbPYMzsRMUgLlhlbdfaCCmqsLUOYnwWpXsOUyU MZOTRKKqPy3wl1pMcd0n+NQm+gxPsfa3volGsnZwAJ3YHsYmOpOpWITUyn0Ulj47hc o9/N2ER/XcWAEbVHAXjIg+IQYP2XT/ItTLVSRbn4pv4eJezQUyOQ9stSCC7ofW/K5v npqeXsSIanG/S3aMqMxb6jlO8hd3mrl4SyIg9It4vsIewWYcij6jHrSU5NInrUvnYV gOOOxDsyhgubw== X-Spam-Level: Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D57F76027F; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:07:34 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1741781255; bh=28W9MFdgXEWLsuXZMH9bYWiYtaVi0/G0aGaS2cM1at4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jJrzQORShKdds4jqiU7GzwMQ/X1OK4mBJ2sKzDS9l/53Wq1ZGmUaQ7+fn3INQKtnP 6bL+8ILCrUBZNsrrDTRYxr2S0OhgnbPYMzsRMUgLlhlbdfaCCmqsLUOYnwWpXsOUyU MZOTRKKqPy3wl1pMcd0n+NQm+gxPsfa3volGsnZwAJ3YHsYmOpOpWITUyn0Ulj47hc o9/N2ER/XcWAEbVHAXjIg+IQYP2XT/ItTLVSRbn4pv4eJezQUyOQ9stSCC7ofW/K5v npqeXsSIanG/S3aMqMxb6jlO8hd3mrl4SyIg9It4vsIewWYcij6jHrSU5NInrUvnYV gOOOxDsyhgubw== Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:07:32 +0100 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Guido Trentalancia Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Signature for newly released iptables-1.8.11 package Message-ID: References: <1741365601.5380.19.camel@trentalancia.com> <20250307164948.GB255870@celephais.dreamlands> <1741780160.5386.23.camel@trentalancia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1741780160.5386.23.camel@trentalancia.com> Hi, On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:49:20PM +0100, Guido Trentalancia wrote: > Hello Pablo this is off-list. > > By the way, there is a patch that seems to be stuck on the basis of the > fact that an existing feature such as hostname-based iptables rules are > presumably unsafe. > > I am referring to the following patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/netfilter-devel/1741369231.5380.37.camel@trenta > lancia.com/T/#m5e68fc86c299f9d7d372813397253dcda1086170 > > The comments have just been looping on the assumption that hostname- > based filtering is unsafe and should not be used, while circumstances > might vary, the feature is not necessarily unsafe and in any case the > real problem of possible DNS failures, which might cause the dropping > of all rules (leaving the system in a truly unsafe state), is not being > addressed. > > I hope this helps. Thanks for your feedback. I agree with what has been said on this already on the mailing list, you should not rely on filter by name