Re: xt_stealth as separate patch against xtables-addons-1.17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

I looked at xt_stealth and it looks like

-A INPUT -j sktest
-A sktest -m socket -j RETURN
-A sktest -j DROP

can do just the same.
Please tell me if I am wrong anywhere.

That would mean there is no need for xt_stealth.

Yeah, thanks for suggestion.

On 2.6.29.6 with iptables 1.4.4, tried:

  iptables -N opensocktest
  iptables -A opensocktest -m socket                      -j RETURN
  iptables -A opensocktest                                -j DROP

  iptables -A INPUT                                       -j opensocktest

Unfortunately, adding the last rule failed with message:

  ip_tables: socket match: bad hook_mask 0x2/0x1

in the KRB (is there something I do wrong, or do I need updated
xt_socket)? At the moment, I'm stuck with 2.6.29.6; no chance to test
with newer kernel.


Btw, the manpage for 'socket' match should clearly specify that
an 'open socket' means socket in either listening or established state.
I was first puzzled by what 'open socket' really means...
Balasz?

Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux