|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Why not have firewall rules by default?
From: Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)modwest.com>
Date: Wed Jan 23 2008 - 10:29:25 EST --On January 23, 2008 9:19:01 AM -0600 William Twomey <william.twomey@gmail.com> wrote: > It's my understanding (and experience) that a Debian system by default is There was atleast at some point I believe evidence that some platforms/firewalls didn't play well with SYN cookies. I could be wrong. > Many distros (RPM-based mostly from my experience) ask you during the There are so many different choices of firewall management packages. Shorewall is one I use, there are many others. Some of which don't play well with extra things that some users may use like wondershaper. Debian is still one of those distros that believes a little more in choice than just pushing things down the users throat. > It's better to leave the service disabled, or even better, completely uninstalled from a security standpoint, and from a DoS standpoint as well. The Linux kernel isn't very efficient at processing firewall rules. Newer kernels might be though (I honestly haven't looked as deeply into this in late 2.6 as i did/do in 2.4...2.4 processes firewall rules strictly step by step) > This much does exist. invoke-rc.d iptables save --- i'm not sure what package the /etc/init.d/iptables script is in, seems to me like it was part of the same package that provided the binaries. > Is debian every going to introduce a better way of having iptables rules Probably not, as, in the distro, there's at least one good firewall management utility, and probably more than one. No need to reinvent the wheel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.orgReceived on Wed Jan 23 10:50:24 2008 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 19 2008 - 06:55:21 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||