From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Feb 13 18: 5:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from vines.webfront.net.au (vines.webfront.net.au [203.23.200.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C1537B4EC for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from bargiwork.webfront.net.au (mail2.ricegrowers.com.au [203.23.203.194]) by vines.webfront.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA74442 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:05:14 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010214130011.00aefb60@mail.webfront.net.au> X-Sender: bargi@mail.webfront.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:11:42 +1100 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Raymond Brighenti Subject: Which would be better hosts.allow or IPFirewall? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, I'm in the process of setting up a few FreeBSD machines that will be sitting on the Internet. I'd like to limit access the IP addresses and ports of these machines but currently putting them behind a dedicated firewall box is not an option. So in this situation does enabling/using IPFirewall just for the local machine make it better/secure than hosts.allow? Thanks Ray To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message