| 1 |
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 18:22 +0100, Oliver Schad wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, 4. Februar 2006 13:50 schrieb mir Jon Mitchell: |
| 3 |
> > The current behaviour of a default Gentoo install is to load |
| 4 |
iptables |
| 5 |
> > after the network has been initialised. Upon shutting down likewise |
| 6 |
> > iptables is shutdown then the network interface. This strikes me as |
| 7 |
> > presenting a window of opportunity when the computer is exposed |
| 8 |
> > without iptables, albeit a small one. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Do people on this list think there is any value in re-arranging this |
| 11 |
> > order by default? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No this doesn't offers a hole, when no service is running and routing |
| 14 |
is |
| 15 |
> deactivated. So all services have to be started after iptables rules. |
| 16 |
> Same for routing. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But this isn't quite what happens by default. Starting up I seem to get |
| 19 |
the network, then http-replicator, then iptables. Shutting down is |
| 20 |
worse: First iptables is turned off, then ntpd, sshd, http-replicator, |
| 21 |
"unmounting network file systems", then the network. So if there were a |
| 22 |
problem in these services they would be exposed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
How do you control the order that programs are shutdown in gentoo? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Iptables doesn't have to protect the TCP/IP stack but a network |
| 27 |
behind |
| 28 |
> the host or services on that host. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Could the network behind the host also be exposed in this small window? |
| 31 |
If you had a firewall machine (two interfaces and packet forwarding) |
| 32 |
without its firewall? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Best regards |
| 35 |
> Oli |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Thanks, |
| 38 |
Jon |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives