From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ray Leach Subject: Re: NAT+FORWARD Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 12:21:18 +0200 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <1083838878.29496.22.camel@raylinux.internal> References: <200405051209.55454.pandre@darkstar.nom.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3avk5I4Atd7/QzNYtTil" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200405051209.55454.pandre@darkstar.nom.za> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Netfilter Mailing List --=-3avk5I4Atd7/QzNYtTil Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 12:09, Paulo Andre wrote: > I just need some clarification please. >=20 > Take for example the following two rules: >=20 > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $ext_card -s $client_IP -d $my_ext_ip -p= tcp=20 > --dport 80 -j DNAT --to $int_web_IP:80 > iptables -A FORWARD -i $ext_card -d $int_web-IP -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCE= PT >=20 > According to my thinking the above rule would be unsafe as the source was= not=20 > specified on the FORWARD rule. As the would allow anyone using the firewa= ll=20 > as a gateway to have access to $int_web_IP on port 80. Is that correct? >=20 Assuming their traffic passes the prerouting rules and the $int_web-IP is routable for them, yes. > Paulo --=20 -- Raymond Leach Network Support Specialist http://www.knowledgefactory.co.za "lynx -source http://www.rchq.co.za/raymondl.asc | gpg --import" Key fingerprint =3D 7209 A695 9EE0 E971 A9AD 00EE 8757 EE47 F06F FB28 -- --=-3avk5I4Atd7/QzNYtTil Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAmhGdh1fuR/Bv+ygRAi6qAKCF54Ge16xZu7nTIcGSA5x/+utXIwCggd3m G5zuXT3is+6ieyBTC6LegKU= =xnqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3avk5I4Atd7/QzNYtTil--