| 1 |
пт, 14 авг. 2020 г. в 23:03, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> [For posterity's sake, with -A Output it's -o <interface> rather than |
| 4 |
> -i <interface>] |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Ah, you are right! I am sorry, my iptables rule with 'noinet' doesn't |
| 7 |
include an interface, I added it when typing the message and looked at |
| 8 |
my rules with an interface from the INPUT section. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> My original post also said I was trying to hide an |
| 11 |
> interface, when all I really needed was to prevent sending of packets |
| 12 |
> on that interface. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, it seems to be enough. I found out that 'noinet' rule when I got |
| 15 |
annoyed by an application (written by Windows programmers as well) |
| 16 |
that was continuously checking updates at each launch... No inet - no |
| 17 |
check :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I think this should work, but I need to rebuild my kernel with the |
| 20 |
> iptables "owner" extension enabled: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Clear! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Alex |
Archives