From: Chris Brenton <cbrenton@chrisbrenton.org>
To: NetFilter List <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: Performance vs. Rule Set Size
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:35:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1090982111.2010.103.camel@grendel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1090980688.22783.8.camel@dchws.tqmcube.com>
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 22:11, David Cary Hart wrote:
>
> I realize that there are too many variables to answer this question with
> great precision so consider this a reality check.
So long as you understand what you are asking. ;-)
> Our server has been under very heavy attack over the last few weeks. I
> have been adding individual hosts who try to exploit either httpd or
> smtp. I now have an input rule set of several hundred lines. Does that
> seem terribly over-sized or is that fairly common?
I've run 400+ on old P-III hardware without a problem. I know others
have gone beyond even that.
One thing you might consider is leveraging custom chains. Something
like:
iptables -N http
iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,ACK SYN -d
192.168.1.128/27 --dport 80 -j http
replacing "-i" with your external interface and "-d" with the IPs of
your Web servers.
Now in the http chain you block all the nasty IPs. You can then either
permit access to your Web servers within that chain, or come back to the
forward chain and keep the rule there. What ever makes life easier for
you.
Nice thing about the above is all non-http traffic no longer has to
traverse all your blocking rules. This should help speed up processing.
HTH,
Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-28 2:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-28 2:11 Performance vs. Rule Set Size David Cary Hart
2004-07-28 2:35 ` Chris Brenton [this message]
2004-07-28 10:21 ` Alexander Samad
2004-07-28 14:51 ` Feizhou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1090982111.2010.103.camel@grendel \
--to=cbrenton@chrisbrenton.org \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox