Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:07:41 -0600 From: "Victor R. Cardona" <vcardona@home.com> To: Raymond Brighenti <bargi@webfront.net.au> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Which would be better hosts.allow or IPFirewall? Message-ID: <20010214000741.B4579@home.com> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010214130011.00aefb60@mail.webfront.net.au>; from bargi@webfront.net.au on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:11:42PM %2B1100 References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010214130011.00aefb60@mail.webfront.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:11:42PM +1100, Raymond Brighenti wrote: > 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? Why not use both. That way you have additional layers of security. Victor Cardona To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010214000741.B4579>