Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:44:58 +0000 From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: Ruben de Groot <mail25@bzerk.org>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this a hole in my firewall? Message-ID: <20041129144458.GA69798@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20041129140930.GA73929@ei.bzerk.org> References: <20041127215612.GA86416@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20041128013135.GD662@gothmog.gr> <20041128044847.GA1435@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20041128122741.GB43088@gothmog.gr> <20041129113020.GA72673@ei.bzerk.org> <20041129132114.GA66047@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20041129140930.GA73929@ei.bzerk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 03:09:30PM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:21:14PM +0000, Jonathon McKitrick typed:
: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:30:20PM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
: > : He's using ppp-nat. So packets from his laptop will first hit rule #300 and
: > : only after that get "nat'ed". I believe this is normal behaviour.
: >
: > Ah, yes. I always forget about ppp-nat.
: >
: > So, then, is this the best way to allow my laptop packets out? Or does it
: > still leave the laptop exposed? I'd like to protect all the machines with
: > one firewall, while keeping it simple, if possible.
:
: Your laptop won't be "exposed" by this. You could however finetune your
: ruleset a little bit by modifying rule 300 to something like:
:
: allow ip from ${INTERNAL_NET} to any keep-state out xmit tun0
:
: where INTERNAL_NET would be e.g. 192.168.0.0/24
Should I also run a firewall on the laptop then, since all traffic to the
laptop is allowed to pass?
jm
--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041129144458.GA69798>