From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 2 17:05:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48CD16A4CE for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:05:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.tiadon.com (SMTP.tiadon.com [69.27.132.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F76E43D5F for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:05:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kdk@daleco.biz) Received: from [69.27.131.0] ([69.27.131.0]) by ns1.tiadon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:04:56 -0500 Message-ID: <413752D6.4060100@daleco.biz> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:05:26 -0500 From: "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040712 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave References: <20040901203202.U31170@metafocus.net> In-Reply-To: <20040901203202.U31170@metafocus.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Sep 2004 17:04:57.0313 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9680510:01C4910E] cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW and icmp X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:05:30 -0000 Dave wrote: >I'm not a master of the internet RFCs, but I do believe icmp messages have >different types. > >Now to enable traceroute for IPFW, I might put in a rule like this: > >ipfw add pass icmp from any to me > >However, how would I make a rule to limit icmp messages to just those used >by traceroute? Can the messages be distinguished as such? > > > I use, thus far, "allow icmp from any to any icmptypes 0,3,4,8,11". That include 'echo request', of course. Someone else may have a better idea. >A dynamic rule that exists only for the duration of a traceroute execution >would be even better. I take it 'setup' or 'check-state' would follow in >that case? > > > Seems likely. *sigh* one more manpage to read.... ;-) Kevin Kinsey