Linux Netfilter discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: /dev/rob0 <rob0@gmx.co.uk>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: A Simple Question
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:58:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200508101458.43569.rob0@gmx.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c685153050809171164af25e4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tuesday 2005-August-09 19:11, Robb Bossley wrote:
> I have been reading the mailing list posts and it seems that most of
> you who are very knowledgeable with netfilter would propose a default
> policy of DROP on both the INPUT and FORWARD chains.
>
> iptables -P INPUT DROP
> iptables -P FORWARD DROP

Yes, but ...

> However, I have noticed that a number of what I would consider to be
> strong contenders in the market use default policies of ACCEPT and
> then have a DROP rule at the end of the tables / chain.
>
> iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
> iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
> ...................................(other stuff
> here).......................... iptables -A INPUT -j DROP
> iptables -A FORWARD -j DROP

... this is simply another means to the same end.

> I'm confused.  Which is preferred for security and why?  (Or is this
> just six of one, half a dozen of another?)

It all depends on the "other stuff" in the middle. At my most complex 
site, I went for default ACCEPT policies because I had multiple types 
of internal interfaces. Even those have varying needs. It just seemed 
that an ACCEPT policy would be the simplest way to get the job done. 
Everything we don't want is dropped (or rejected), everything we do 
want is accepted.
-- 
    mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0"
    or "not-spam" is in Subject: header


  reply	other threads:[~2005-08-10 19:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-08-10  0:11 A Simple Question Robb Bossley
2005-08-10 19:58 ` /dev/rob0 [this message]
2005-08-11  5:54 ` Jan Engelhardt
2005-08-12  5:27 ` Grant Taylor
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-19 17:58 A simple question Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN
2004-08-19 17:47 Daniel Chemko
2004-08-19 17:14 Daniel Chemko
2004-08-19 17:31 ` Nick Drage
2004-08-19 15:15 Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN
2004-08-19 11:04 Jason Opperisano
2004-08-19  2:36 Sudheer Divakaran
2004-08-19  4:18 ` Mark E. Donaldson
2004-08-19  8:39   ` Torsten Luettgert
2004-08-19  4:52 ` Dhananjoy Chowdhury
2004-08-19 15:46 ` Erick Sanz
2004-04-06  2:25 Gianni Pucciani
2004-04-05 22:40 ` Antony Stone
2004-04-06 13:26   ` Gianni Pucciani

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=200508101458.43569.rob0@gmx.co.uk \
    --to=rob0@gmx.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