Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-04 Thread Will Aoki
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:52:21AM -0500, Moses Moore wrote: > Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote: > > I want to know if my point of view is right, or if there is any > > functionality that hosts.{allow,deny} scheme provides which iptables > > can't. > > - You have daemon-by-daemon settings instead o

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-04 Thread Moses Moore
Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote: > I want to know if my point of view is right, or if there is any > functionality that hosts.{allow,deny} scheme provides which iptables > can't. - You have daemon-by-daemon settings instead of port-by-port or protocol-by-protocol. - the aforementioned 'extra layer

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-04 Thread Will Aoki
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:52:21AM -0500, Moses Moore wrote: > Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote: > > I want to know if my point of view is right, or if there is any > > functionality that hosts.{allow,deny} scheme provides which iptables > > can't. > > - You have daemon-by-daemon settings instead

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-04 Thread Moses Moore
Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote: > I want to know if my point of view is right, or if there is any > functionality that hosts.{allow,deny} scheme provides which iptables > can't. - You have daemon-by-daemon settings instead of port-by-port or protocol-by-protocol. - the aforementioned 'extra laye

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-04 Thread Jean-Francois Dive
hello, tcpd offer offer another layer of security in your application ACL scheme which is always a good thing. Another point is that you can have more control on whow do what from where, you can match on usernames which is something that iptables cant do as it acts at an underlying level. Security

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-03 Thread Jean-Francois Dive
hello, tcpd offer offer another layer of security in your application ACL scheme which is always a good thing. Another point is that you can have more control on whow do what from where, you can match on usernames which is something that iptables cant do as it acts at an underlying level. Securit

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-03 Thread Olaf Meeuwissen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joao Luis Meloni Assirati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Recently I learned how to use linux2.4 netfilter. Since it is a fairly > complete ip tool (tcp, udp, icmp), capable of a wide set of matchings > (source IP, dest port, ...) and also able to LOG,

hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-03 Thread Joao Luis Meloni Assirati
Hello, Sorry if this was already posted. Recently I learned how to use linux2.4 netfilter. Since it is a fairly complete ip tool (tcp, udp, icmp), capable of a wide set of matchings (source IP, dest port, ...) and also able to LOG, it seemed to me that all hosts.{allow,deny} control through tcpd

Re: hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-03 Thread Olaf Meeuwissen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joao Luis Meloni Assirati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Recently I learned how to use linux2.4 netfilter. Since it is a fairly > complete ip tool (tcp, udp, icmp), capable of a wide set of matchings > (source IP, dest port, ...) and also able to LOG,

hosts.{allow,deny} vs iptables.

2002-03-03 Thread Joao Luis Meloni Assirati
Hello, Sorry if this was already posted. Recently I learned how to use linux2.4 netfilter. Since it is a fairly complete ip tool (tcp, udp, icmp), capable of a wide set of matchings (source IP, dest port, ...) and also able to LOG, it seemed to me that all hosts.{allow,deny} control through tcp