From owner-freebsd-security Thu Oct 29 08:42:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA14275 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:42:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from carp.gbr.epa.gov (carp.gbr.epa.gov [204.46.159.110]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA14268 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 08:42:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjenkins@carp.gbr.epa.gov) Received: (from mjenkins@localhost) by carp.gbr.epa.gov (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA12888; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:42:39 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from mjenkins) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 10:42:39 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Jenkins Message-Id: <199810291642.KAA12888@carp.gbr.epa.gov> To: wjv@cityip.co.za Subject: Re: Connections succeed even though denied by IPFW Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19981029143547.A15193@cityip.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:35:47 +0200 > From: Johann Visagie > > Problem solved. It was all due to a gross misconfiguration of IPFW rules by > yours truly. Worse, this situation has persisted for some months - time to > do a thorough security audit on the box in question. :-( Brings back memories of the classic packet filtering paper by Brent Chapman entitled "Network (In)Security Through IP Packet Filtering". Things have improved with packet filters but it can still be difficult to get it right. Of course, you might run a scanner (nmap) to see if your rules are working. Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message