From owner-freebsd-security Tue Jul 25 14:53: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (adsl-63-201-63-44.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347D037B791 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:53:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC1FE9EE01; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B463B9B001; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problems with natd and simple firewall In-Reply-To: <200007252128.OAA52048@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > a) The non-problem it attempts to solve can be handled by a correct > ipfw rule set. Agreed. > c) It also totally ignores the fact that the problematic IP addresses > are much more than RFC1918 and include the following: > 0.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 192.0.2.0/24, 169.254.0.0/16, 240.0.0.0/4 > that need to be dealt with properly and carefully at both interfaces > in a firewall. Point taken, and agreed. -mrh To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message