Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPTABLES syntax change?
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 03:27:40
Message-Id: CA+czFiCtRD-J9R22TxGr2ArzFUNxmPhY6-zuuR70STztEQW2XA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] IPTABLES syntax change? by Walter Dnes
1 On Jan 4, 2013 8:33 PM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
4 > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org>
5 wrote:
6 > > >
7 > > > The mere fact that you haven't manually typed in...
8 > > > http://www.facebook.com/blah_blah_blah does not mean you're not
9 > > > connecting to it.
10 > >
11 > > But all that's above layer 3, since it's an HTTP redirect, or a page
12 > > transclusion which necessitates a new GET request. Michael's point
13 > > stands.
14 >
15 > And I want to make sure that new GET request is blocked coming and
16 > going.
17 >
18 > --
19 > Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org>
20 > I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
21 >
22
23 And it will, for the simple reason that outbound psckets are dropped, so
24 inbound packets are nevrr valid. That was Michael's point.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] IPTABLES syntax change? Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com>