Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:24:32 -0500
From:      Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
To:        Rob Simmons <rsimmons@wlcg.com>
Cc:        Allen Landsidel <all@biosys.net>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, Brock Kreiser <root63@earthlink.net>
Subject:   Re: firewall
Message-ID:  <20011011102432.B57251@squall.waterspout.com>
In-Reply-To: <20011011100410.G7007-100000@mail.wlcg.com>
References:  <5.1.0.14.0.20011011094352.00b022e8@rfnj.org> <20011011100410.G7007-100000@mail.wlcg.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 10:06:39AM -0400, Rob Simmons wrote:
> Passive FTP requires a larger hole in the firewall than active does.  You
> must open port 21 as well as ports > 1024.  Not good.
> 
> If you use ipfilter and are keeping state, you only need the one pass in
> rule for port 21.  The state tables take care of the rest.

Er, you have that backwards.  Passive FTP requires a SMALLER hole
because it doesn't require ports > 1024 like active does.

-- 
wca

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011011102432.B57251>