From: Daniel Lopes <lopsch@lopsch.com>
Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: 2 Questions--state (est, rel) and tuning
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:23:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42A059E8.5020905@lopsch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B80488675062364A909EE60F4A66603807840D05@usilms23.ca.com>
Ginter, Jeff A schrieb:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am brand new to the list and couldn't find an easy way to browse the
> whole archive, so my apologies if this has been discussed (as it
> probably has).
>
>
>
> I understand the state concepts, however, I keep seeing example iptable
> scripts with the first rule in each chain being something like....ACCEPT
> related and established packets.
>
>
>
> My first question is...Is that really needed? In my other experiences
> with stateful firewalls this rule is not needed because the firewall
> remembers the outgoing packet and the rule is implied...or do I have
> this very wrong?
>
Hmm you often will see a default policy of DROP in the filter tables. So
related to the strategy deny all allow needed. Then new connections from
inside to outside are explicitly allowed with the NEW state. Then when
answer packets come back in and reach a filter table and there is no
rule to handle them they will be dropped. Therefor there are the EST.
and REL. states to allow that packets because they should be save enough
as new conns. are only allowed/initiated from inside to outside. Surely
it doensn´t prevent a machine with a freaking worm to spread out ;).
>
>
>
> My second question, which may not be totally applicable for this list
> is...I have my netfilter/iptables set up on a Redhat 4 Ent WS box...are
> the following parameters for hardening still useful and applicable with
> the current kernel and distro?
>
>
>
> net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 1
> net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_source_route = 0
> net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_redirects = 0
> net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter = 1
> net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_all = 1 = 1
> net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts = 1
> net.ipv4.icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses = 1
> net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians = 1
>
Yes they are.
>
>
> Thanks very much for any help!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff Ginter, CISSP
>
> Computer Associates
>
> Mid-Atlantic Consulting Manager
>
> tel: +1 908 874-9726
>
> cell: +1 609 577-1494
>
> jeff.ginter@ca.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-03 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-03 12:59 2 Questions--state (est, rel) and tuning Ginter, Jeff A
2005-06-03 13:23 ` Daniel Lopes [this message]
2005-06-03 15:40 ` Jason Opperisano
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-06-03 14:06 Ginter, Jeff A
2005-06-03 14:38 ` Jörg Harmuth
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=42A059E8.5020905@lopsch.com \
--to=lopsch@lopsch.com \
--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