From: Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: Is this config OK, plus where should I be logging...
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:34:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200404051434.04761.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>
On Monday 05 April 2004 2:14 pm, Alistair Tonner, the man with no email
address, wrote:
> (on an aside Antony ... what value do you see in a smoll system config of
> breaking the traffic down into user chains based on direction of traffic?
> -- and only using the builtins to get the packets into those user chains?)
I see no benefit in that unless your traffic rules are sufficiently complex to
make them easier to understand if you break them down into multiple user
chains (and for what I think you described as a "small system", you wouldn't
have that complexity).
Most systems below an unreasonable level of complication have rules which fall
into the following categories:
1. Clients on local LAN accessing servers on Internet.
2. Clients on local LAN accessing servers on DMZ.
3. Systems on the Internet accessing servers on DMZ.
4. Servers on DMZ accessing the Internet.
5. Replies to any/all the above.
For the very simplest systems of course you don't even have categories (2),
(3) or (4).
For most small systems, (1) is very simple - allow everything.
(2) and (4) (for a simple setup) provide the same services, so combined rules
can be used without bothering about the input interface.
(3) is the area where your level of paranoia determines how complex your rules
get.
(5) is a single rule on the whole firewall allowing Established / Related
packets.
Therefore I see no reason not to put the whole lot of the above into a single
FORWARD chain, with the proviso that rule (5) comes first.
Regards,
Antony.
--
I don't know, maybe if we all waited then cosmic rays would write all our
software for us. Of course it might take a while.
- Ron Minnich, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Please reply to the list;
please don't CC me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-05 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-04 17:26 Is this config OK, plus were should I be logging Stuart Lamble
2004-04-04 17:56 ` Is this config OK, plus where " Antony Stone
2004-04-04 18:41 ` Stuart Lamble
2004-04-04 19:07 ` Antony Stone
2004-04-05 5:46 ` Stuart Lamble
2004-04-05 9:11 ` Antony Stone
2004-04-05 13:14 ` Unknown, Alistair Tonner
[not found] ` <200404050914.19563.Alistair Tonner <>
2004-04-05 13:34 ` Antony Stone [this message]
2004-04-05 13:48 ` Antony Stone
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=200404051434.04761.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk \
--to=antony@soft-solutions.co.uk \
--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