Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.



  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