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 |