On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:39:26 -0700, Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Michael C. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030919 10:30]: > > In linux.debian.user, Jimmy Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I have set up Iptables so that I reject > > > all incomming traffic, except the traffic I have requested, > > > because I don't need incomming SSH or anything like that. > > > > While I believe it breaks something, if you're not serving the > > internet, I'd drop incoming traffic as opposed to rejecting it, that > > way you are stealth. > > I'd recommend just the opposite, since as you said, it breaks > "something", and if you believe you are "stealth", you're only fooling > yourself. > > IMO, it's not worth it. My favorite firewall configs reject TCP with > RST, UDP with icmp-port-unreach, and other protocols with > icmp-proto-unreach. > > I think it's easier to make your firewall invisible than it is to make > your host invisible. You can't disappear; the best you can do is > become uninteresting (no open ports). ..what setup wil look the least interesting, on dial-up, a "wintendo95 ready to fall over"? For us fat-pipers, a "Knoppix cd"? A "remaster"? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
