1 |
Mark Hurst wrote: |
2 |
> It's much better to have a firewall than just have ports not open. Even |
3 |
> though a port is not open it can reveal the presence of your machine by |
4 |
> the manner in which the IP stack responds to a connection attempt. Using a |
5 |
> firewall you can drop those packets, making all your closed ports |
6 |
> invisible. |
7 |
|
8 |
If by "firewall," you mean an application(Process ID?)-specific Internet |
9 |
security tool, then you may well have identified an as-yet unfulfilled |
10 |
need. If you only mean to imply greater security in that connection |
11 |
attempts to closed ports appear invisible, then iptables aready does that. |
12 |
|
13 |
In "closing" ports, one has the option - nay one is recommended - to use |
14 |
the "DROP" target which has the desired effect of which you speak. |
15 |
(Unwanted packets are simply and silently dropped upon the proverbial |
16 |
floor.) There are, of course, cases where using, say, "REJECT" may be |
17 |
prefered - most notably if one is using one's Linux box to do some true |
18 |
grit routing (as when using multiple Internet service providers). In |
19 |
those cases, if a neighboring router is trying to pass packets *through* |
20 |
one's area, one wants to let one's neighbor know as soon as possible |
21 |
that it should look elsewhere. |
22 |
|
23 |
dreamwolf |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |