Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Chris K Ellsworth <cke@××××××××××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] firewall suggestions?
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:53:26
Message-Id: 00c101c3d60c$85ff2b70$6601a8c0@ckelaptop
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] firewall suggestions? by Frank Gruellich
1 So then are these the good ICMP's that should be allowed and all others be
2 killed for "good" firewall admin practices?
3
4 ----- Original Message -----
5 From: "Frank Gruellich" <frank@××××××××××××.org>
6 To: <gentoo-security@l.g.o>
7 Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:55 AM
8 Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] firewall suggestions?
9
10
11 > * Troy Farrell <troy@×××××××××××.com> 8. Jan 04
12 > > # iptables -L allow-icmp-traffic
13 >
14 > [output fixed]
15 >
16 > > Chain allow-icmp-traffic (2 references)
17 > > target prot opt source destination
18 > > ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
19 time-exceeded limit: avg 10/sec burst 5
20 > > ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
21 destination-unreachable limit: avg 10/sec burst 5
22 > > ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
23 source-quench limit: avg 10/sec burst 5
24 > > ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
25 echo-request limit: avg 5/sec burst 5
26 > > ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp
27 echo-reply limit: avg 5/sec burst 5
28 > > LOG icmp -- anywhere anywhere LOG level
29 warning prefix `Bad ICMP traffic:'
30 > > REJECT icmp -- anywhere anywhere
31 >
32 > The default answer of REJECT ist port unreachable. I always wondered,
33 > if this is a good way to answer to a question in a protocol with no
34 > ports. Shouldn't you answer with ICMP protocol unreachable maybe?
35 >
36 > Regards, Frank.
37 > --
38 > Sigmentation fault
39 >
40 > --
41 > gentoo-security@g.o mailing list
42 >
43 >
44 >
45
46
47 --
48 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-security] firewall suggestions? Troy Farrell <troy@×××××××××××.com>