From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antony Stone Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Help with ICMP Ruls Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:13:55 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <200407152113.55450.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> References: <20040715195526.1368.qmail@web40709.mail.yahoo.com> Reply-To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040715195526.1368.qmail@web40709.mail.yahoo.com> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Thursday 15 July 2004 8:55 pm, Real Cucumber wrote: > I do have a state rule already for allowing any > established,related connections. In that case you are already allowing ICMP :) > So should I add another one such as: > > iptables -A FORWARD -p icmp -m state --state RELATED > -j ACCEPT No. ICMP messages which are RELATED to the existing SSH connections will get matched by the final rule in this section of your rules: # Allow previously initiated and accepted connections # to bypass firewall tests (state matching) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT Just out of interest, why do you have the first two of these rules, if you have no INPUT or OUTPUT traffic? Regards, Antony. -- Microsoft may sell more software than any other company, but McDonald's sell more burgers than any other company, and I think the other similarities are obvious... Please reply to the list; please don't CC me.