From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Oct 25 6:49:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mip.co.za (puck.mip.co.za [209.212.106.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C42937B403 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patrick (patrick.mip.co.za [10.3.13.181]) by mip.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA94774; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:49:19 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from patrick@mip.co.za) From: "Patrick O'Reilly" To: "Karl Pielorz" , "FreeBSD Question List" Subject: RE: ipfw rules for FTP - passive vs. active Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:52:53 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <515708619.1004018251@geko> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Karl, thanks for your response. I guess I am just a few steps behind you, and desperately hoping NOT to get to the point of giving up. PS: I posted to FreeBSD because I'm using ipfw and was hoping that ipfw might have the silver bullet I need. If so, that is FreeBSD specific. Anyway, I'm starting to dig deeper into what keep-state can and cannot do. Patrick. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Karl Pielorz > Sent: 25 October 2001 14:58 > To: Patrick O'Reilly; FreeBSD Question List > Subject: Re: ipfw rules for FTP - passive vs. active > > > On 25 October 2001 14:51 +0200 Patrick O'Reilly wrote, > > This question isn't really FreeBSD related? :( - If you look in > /etc/rc.firewall - theres a recomendation on a couple of good books that > would help you :) Having said all that.... > > > I must point out that I have never got around to understanding the > > capabilities of ipfw's stateful rules. If therein lies the > solution then > > just a gentle prod with the clue stick would be much appreciated. > > FTP is a notoriously hard protocol to firewall, because as you've > found out > - it needs connections to arbitary ports on both machines, both ways... > > Infact, we almost gave up - we have our FTP server bound to a single IP > address, and just firewall to that, permitting access to ports > 20/21 etc. - > and to any port over 1024. > > We then make absolutely certain there are no other services bound to that > IP address (e.g. if someone went and installed MySQL - and bound > it to that > port, that would be bad, as MySQL runs on port 3306 or similar, > which would > be allowed by the rules)... > > Infact, as a kind of failsafe, I think we actually blocked MySQL, and a > couple of other high-port services deliberately to that IP, 'just in case' > > -Kp > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message