On May 24, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
Thank you for your suggestions... I think it helped me solve the
problem. It seems I needed to add more rules... although they seem
redundant to me, but they have clearly made an improvement and I'm
no longer getting those dns related e
On May 24, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
I hate to ask something silly, but you do have a check-state rule
somewhere, right?
it's not silly..., what's silly is now I'm asking how would I
check :) or what would the rule look like.
You've have an "ipfw add check-state" rule som
On May 24, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
That's very interesting and makes sense. I do not have the check-
state in there, and just specify each port that is open, I'm
guessing I did not run into this problem with anything else, as dns
is a very stateful type of protocol?
DNS
On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Gilberto Villani Brito wrote:
How can I make a nat for many different networks using different
real IPs using natd?
People with many different networks using real IPs generally don't
need natd, they simply use a router and/or firewall.
This being said, you can u
On Sep 20, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Peter Rosa wrote:
If you use "passive mode" FTP, that ought to work fine. If you use
"active mode" FTP, you ought to use the FTP proxying built into NATD
(see the -use_sockets and -punch_fw options), which is aware of the
FTP data channel.
Please, could you be litt
On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Jin Fang wrote:
Which version of freebsd has 'table' command been implemented into
ipfw?
I try it in 5.2.1 to use:
# ipfw table 1 add x.x.x.x/32
get:
ipfw: bad command `table'
It was added somewhere around 5.3. Someone running 5.2.1 should
update to 5.3, 5.4,
Hi--
On Sep 25, 2013, at 10:23 AM, NetOps Admin wrote:
> Hi,
> We are currently getting hit with a DoS attack that looks very
> similar to a Fraggle attack. We are seeing a large amount of UDP traffic
> coming at us from thousands of hosts. The source UDP port is 19 (chargen)
> and when it
On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:09 PM, hiren panchasara
wrote:
> Apologies if this is something silly but I want to completely eliminate
> ipfw from outgoing traffic perspective. I just want to have it on
> incoming. I can always add "allow ip from any to any out" as the first
> rule but that is still ipfw
