"Grant Peel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was wondering what the concensus is on using dynamic rules in IPFW. Every
> once in a while, I suppose there is a DoS attaclk that causes me to see
> hundreds of:
>
> +ipfw: install_state: Too many dynamic rules
>
> in my security log.
>
> I am sure i
I have same problem related to ipfw pullup. I couldn't find any
documentation or solution on it.
Narek
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Peel
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:07 PM
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: IPFW Question
Thanks for the replies!
On 2/25/07, Andrew Pantyukhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/25/07, Curby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you don't forward packets, then it's not very different,
packets for "not me" are gonna get dropped anyway right
after the firewall.
Thanks! I think I found a case
On Sunday 25 February 2007 13:33, Curby wrote:
> I'm using IPFW2 on a Mac, but hopefully these questions are general
> enough for this list.
>
> First, is there any reason not to prefer "from any to any" over "from
> any to me" when adding rules to allow access to local services? Some
> ipfw conf
On 2/25/07, Curby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm using IPFW2 on a Mac, but hopefully these questions are general
enough for this list.
ipfw@ might be more appropriate
First, is there any reason not to prefer "from any to any" over "from
any to me" when adding rules to allow access to local se
