From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 17 06:08:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73B537B401 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa-plum1b-166.pit.adelphia.net (pa-plum1b-217.pit.adelphia.net [24.53.161.217]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2692E43F93 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from potentialtech.com (working [172.16.0.95]) h5HD87Og005474; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:08:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Message-ID: <3EEF12B7.8040208@potentialtech.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:08:07 -0400 From: Bill Moran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030429 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Thomson References: <20030617121346.GA80594@athomson.prv.au.itouchnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20030617121346.GA80594@athomson.prv.au.itouchnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: restrictive ipfw ruleset and ftp X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:08:10 -0000 Andrew Thomson wrote: > any suggestions would be great. > > i have a restrictive ipfw ruleset that works great.. it only allows > incoming connections that i allow and outgoing connections allow. i have > a list of ports that i let my users go out on: 80, 22, 143, 443 etc > etc.. > > All the stuff they might need to do. > > how can i handle passive ftp though? > > i can let 21 out, but when the remote ftp server says use this x high > port.. i block that because it's not in my list. so what can i do to get > around this.. > > not totally familiar with it, but is this what fw_punch is for within > nat?? That's what it's designed for. I've never used it so I can't verify how well it works. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com