On Monday 17 May 2010 09:58, Len Kuykendall wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:13:43 +0200
> > From: gavroche@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: iptables]
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 06:08:45PM -0400, Robert Spangler wrote:
> > > On Friday 23 April 2010 15:20, cahit Eyigünlü wrote:
> > > > how or why i have redesigned it to this and it seems like worked :
> > >
> > > See big problems in your future.
> > >
> > > > :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> > > > :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
> > > > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
> > >
> > > Anyone with a little bit of security awareness would never set the
> > > default policy to ACCEPT and the reason is below. You would think RH
> > > would know better.
> > >
> > > > -A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT
> > > > -A FORWARD -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -i eth0 -j ACCEPT
> > >
> > > With this rule above you just opened up you complete system to what
> > > ever it is connected to. That is why it is working. I am hoping this
> > > box doesn't have Internet access.
> > >
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 51 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp --dport 5353 -d 224.0.0.251 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j
> > > > ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp
> > > > --dport 8443 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport
> > > > 22 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport
> > > > 25 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport
> > > > 80 -j ACCEPT
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport
> > > > 21 -j ACCEPT
> > > > "/etc/sysconfig/iptables" 40L, 1617C
> > >
> > > Even if you didn't have the line with '-i eth0 -j ACCEPT' you system
> > > was still open to everyone because at this point if none of the rules
> > > apply and the firewall falls back to the policy setting to decide what
> > > to do with a packet. Since all your policies are set to ACCEPT the
> > > packet is accepted and the hacker is in.
> > >
> > > For this reason one would think RH would do a little more and set the
> > > default policies to DROP. It is so easy to miss the reject or drop
> > > statements at the end and the policy would catch them for you.
> > >
> > > I know some will argue that RH did what they needed to do, but they
> > > could go that extra step don't you think.
> >
> > Absolutely agree with you. It would save us from threads like that
> > because people would need to read about iptables and stop to ask silly
> > questions.
> >
> > --
> > Dominik Zyla
>
> Setting the default policy to DROP is not always the best approach,
> especially if you do remote administration. What happens when you are
> connected remotely and execute: # iptables -F
>
> You are either jumping in the car to drive to the server or on the phone
> trying to reach someone local to assist because the default DROP policy
> just killed your session.
Why would you ever do a '-F' remotely? Change the rules and something is not
working then you should just restart/reload the firewall. Everything that
worked before the change will still be working again and the rules that
wasn't working will be removed.
> In my opinion a better option for creating a default DROP policy is to add
> the following rule (INPUT chain in this example) as the last entry in a
> chain:
>
> -A INPUT -j DROP
>
> Now you have a chain that performs like one with a default DROP policy but
> does not kill your remote session if all rules are flushed.
As I state above opinions very but forget that rule or comment it out by
mistake and your system is left wide open to everyone because your default
rules is set to 'ACCEPT' everything.
To each his own. I set the default policy to DROP and I also place the DROP
rule at the end of all my chains. The policy is my safety net in case I
would happen to remove the DROP rule at the end of a chain by mistake.
When working remotely you have to be extra careful because should you lock
yourself out it could be a long night.
--
Regards
Robert
Linux User #296285
http://counter.li.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
