From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 17 15: 0:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB14337B401 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [198.78.66.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0307143ED1 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:00:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from craig@meoqu.gank.org) Received: from owen1492.it.oot (nat10343.owentools.com [206.50.138.222]) by ion.gank.org (GankMail) with ESMTP id AB3732CA39; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:56:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: ipfilter / ipnat quandry From: Craig Boston To: Clifton Royston Cc: stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1040165976.4062.8.camel@owen1492.it.oot> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 17 Dec 2002 16:59:37 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 13:02, Clifton Royston wrote: > ipf does have the ability to more correctly simulate a closed port. > I did a similar exercise on my personal OpenBSD firewall box earlier > this year; I won't go through your whole ruleset, but basically for > every TCP port you block, you need to add a return-rst, and for every > UDP port you block, you need to add return-icmp(port-unr). This > provides a pretty good simulation of a host running no services, if > that's what you want to look like. Does ipfw or ipf have the ability to return a SYN/ACK packet for each incoming SYN, and return an appropriate ACK any incoming ACK packets? (mischievous grin) Craig To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message