Article View: comp.os.linux.setup
Article #52Re: Packet filtering (ipchains)
From: Kaden
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:23
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:23
31 lines
2627 bytes
2627 bytes
On Thursday 28 June 2001 18:04 Manfred Bartz wrote: > Kaden <sfam@mailandnews.com> writes: > >> Yes. REJECT will treat the packet just as if the port was closed, >> and send back the appropriate ICMP packet. > > Except that an ICMP response is correct for a closed UDP port but > not for a closed TCP port. It seems to me I heard this somewhere before. I had forgotten about it when I replied, though. Thanks for the reminder. However, it looks as if you need to update your site to show exactly what you just said. It doesn't make a distinction between TCP or UDP ports. It just says exactly what I said in my original reply. The difference is implied at the end under "Revealing the existance of a firewall" but if it were me, I'd put that information right up top under the "reject" heading. Just my opinion. > To produce a genuine TCP reset response for selected ports, the best > method is to pick a port that is guaranteed to not have a server > listening on it (f.e. 65534), leave it open and redirect other ports > to it. This I hadn't heard of before. I'd heard of redirecting to a port that was listening, but had fake services, or syslog set to listen to it or something like that, but not to an unopen port in the attempt to simulate closed TCP ports. Funny how the simple things such as this tend to escape you as posibilites, isn't it?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9hgjf8$85p$1@news.xmission.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!xmission!nnrp.xmission!not-for-mailReferences:
<3b3a793d@usenet.per.paradox.net.au> <m2vglho09t.fsf@reddwarf.xix.net> <3b3b22d7@usenet.per.paradox.net.au> <9hgd3a$68r$1@news.xmission.com> <m28zickv4n.fsf@reddwarf.xix.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f9b51,9de258465609deaf X-Google-Attributes: gidf9b51,public X-Google-Thread: 102983,9de258465609deaf X-Google-Attributes: gid102983,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-28 17:51:54 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!xmission!nnrp.xmission!not-for-mail From: Kaden <sfam@mailandnews.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup,aus.computers.linux Subject: Re: Packet filtering (ipchains) Followup-To: comp.os.linux.setup Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:51:24 +0028 Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/ Lines: 31 Message-ID: <9hgjf8$85p$1@news.xmission.com> References: <3b3a793d@usenet.per.paradox.net.au> <m2vglho09t.fsf@reddwarf.xix.net> <3b3b22d7@usenet.per.paradox.net.au> <9hgd3a$68r$1@news.xmission.com> <m28zickv4n.fsf@reddwarf.xix.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: slc499.modem.xmission.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.xmission.com 993775912 8377 166.70.2.245 (29 Jun 2001 00:51:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@xmission.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jun 2001 00:51:52 GMT User-Agent: KNode/0.5.6