The info I had while constructing my ipchains firewall seems to be the
opposite.  I lead off with:

# Set the default policy to deny
ipchains -P input DENY
ipchains -P output REJECT
ipchains -P forward REJECT

Now note that those are policy settings and not input/output rules.

Matthew Zaleski

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Wahl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [expert] thanks for the check port cmdln
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Ron Johnson, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > Matthew Micene wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> > > > Since the foreign address is 0.0.0.0, does that mean that these
> > > > ports are accessable by the world?  Port 515 is the print
> > > > spooler, so it sounds bad that that should be world accessable.
> > > 
> > > You'd better believe it.  And if you want it to get 
> worse, open an X
> > > Window session and watch X pop up on port 6000 and xfs on 
> port 2046 I
> > > think.  This is why EVERYONE running a linux box (at home 
> or otherwise)
> > > needs to have a firewall installed of some sort.  One solution is
> > > tcpserver as a replacement for inet super server because 
> it supports
> > > binding to a specific interface or address.  It is 
> limited in the fact
> > > that it only handles TCP protocols.
> > 
> > Well that's pretty bad.  I used PMFirewall to set up my ipchains
> > commands, but apparently it has left some things out...  It
> > was my assumption that PMFirewall blocked everything then
> > allowed only certain ports in...
> > 
> > Ron
> > 
> 
> I hope someone will jump in and correct if I'm wrong but I think your
> original assumption about PMFirewall is correct.  Just 
> because a netstat
> command will show a port as listening, doesn't mean that 
> PMFirewall will
> let anyone besides localhost connect to it if you have PMFirewall
> configured to deny/reject connection attempts to that particular port.
> 
> Take a look at your ipchains as root with "ipchains -L".  
> Remember that
> the chains are processed one line at a time from the top 
> down. The first
> line will be an "accept all" then there should be rules to accept
> connections to particular ports if you want those services 
> running.  Then
> there will be explicit reject chains for common exploits 
> (netbios, etc.
> plus denial for 5999-6003) and then there should be a rule to accept
> connections in the temp range 1023-65535.  The final input 
> chain should be
> an explicit deny all to block anything that was not 
> specifically permitted
> in the chains prior.
> 
> If I have this wrong then someone please tell me, as I've got 
> some work to
> do if that is the case.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> #-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
> | Ken Wahl, CCNA   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  PGP Key ID:  3CF9AB36 |
> | PGP Public Key:  http://www.ipass.net/~kenwahl/pgpkey.txt |
> #-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--> Powered by Linux Mandrake <--=-=-=-=-=-=-#
> 
> Linux up 1 day, 17:03, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: 
Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.

Reply via email to