| 1 |
> > > Anyway, a closed port remains closed whether a firewall is running, |
| 2 |
> > > or not. |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I thought the firewall specified which ports to open/close. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Not quite, but we might be running into terminology here. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The app that is listening a port opens the port. This has nothing to do |
| 9 |
> with the firewall. The firewall is simply an extra level of checks |
| 10 |
> applied before the packet is allowed thorugh the firewall to be |
| 11 |
> received by the kernel, in the same way that a bouncer allows or |
| 12 |
> disallows the public to enter a club. If the bouncer is off sick, the |
| 13 |
> public gets to walk through the door up to reception, assuming the club |
| 14 |
> is open for business. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> What Mick was referring to is that if a service is running, it's still |
| 17 |
> going to listen on it's port whether iptables is running or not. So, in |
| 18 |
> the absense of iptables (i.e. your bouncer is off sick), you hopefully |
| 19 |
> have a decent password strategy in use by whatever is actually |
| 20 |
> listening on the box. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So as far as incoming connections are concerned, if there are no |
| 23 |
listening applications, there is no need for a firewall? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
- Grant |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives