Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:26:18 -0500
From:      Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
To:        Joseph Gleason <clash@fireduck.com>
Cc:        Joseph Gleason <freebsd@fireduck.com>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: 3 nics - 1 bridge - 2 ips - bad?
Message-ID:  <3B41D60A.79D8E6F7@centtech.com>
References:  <3B3A0DD7.87EDC7E@centtech.com> <006101c0ff2c$4d75bee0$0a2d2d0a@battleship> <3B3A17A9.5ADF75BA@centtech.com> <002201c0ff2e$fe7c4770$0a2d2d0a@battleship>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just FYI, it works great!  Thanks..


Joseph Gleason wrote:
> 
> I was wrong!  Don't listen to my lies!
> 
> I am told that bridging can indeed be enabled and disabled per port via some
> sysctl call.
> 
> With bridge compiled into the kernel:
> 
> sysctl -A |grep bridge should give you the approriate parameter to play
> with.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Anderson" <anderson@centtech.com>
> To: "Joseph Gleason" <freebsd@fireduck.com>
> Cc: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 13:28
> Subject: Re: 3 nics - 1 bridge - 2 ips - bad?
> 
> > Thanks for the response.. I think you're correct here, I don't see
> > anyway to only enable 2 out of 3 interfaces for bridging.  Darn. Oh
> > well, thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Joseph Gleason wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you might have a problem with the bridging.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if you can bridge xl0 and xl1 without including xl2.  I
> could
> > > be wrong
> > > And you might be able to pull something off with IPFW rules to exclude
> xl2
> > > from the bridging, but I wouldn't trust it.
> > >
> > > What you want certainly looks like two separate and possibly
> incompatible
> > > tasks.  My advise would be have two machines do this if at all possible.
> > > Machine one being your ethernet bridge.  Machine two being the gateway
> to
> > > your protected network.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eric Anderson" <anderson@centtech.com>
> > > To: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:46
> > > Subject: 3 nics - 1 bridge - 2 ips - bad?
> > >
> > > > Lets say I have 3 NIC's in a machine running FreeBSD 4.2.
> > > > Is it possible to have this sort of configuration:
> > > > xl0 - 200.200.200.200 - [interface 1 of bridge0]
> > > > xl1 - NO IP           - [interface 2 of bridge0]
> > > > xl2 - 192.168.10.10   - not part of any bridge
> > > >
> > > > the 200.200.200.200 number is of course made up, but signifies an
> > > > interface on the unprotected net.  The 192.168.10.10 interface is also
> > > > made up, showing an interface on the protected internal net.  Now, the
> > > > xl1 interface is bridged to xl0, creating a port for passing thru to
> the
> > > > unprotected net that xl0 is on.  Is there any inherent security flaws
> in
> > > > this configuration (besides having a possible computer plug into the
> xl1
> > > > port and not being behind a firewall), assuming it works at all?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance..
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >

<-- SNIP -->

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson	 anderson@centtech.com    Centaur Technology    (512)
418-5792
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and
wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B41D60A.79D8E6F7>