Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:23:10 -0600 From: Tony Wells <awells@journalstar.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: <3A8ABEFE.26D0AFF7@journalstar.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010214130011.00aefb60@mail.webfront.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
TCP wrappers only affects services started through inetd. If you want control access to other services, say a database or such, you need to use a firewall. You don't need to have a dedicated firewall box, you can filter packets right on the host machine. There is a good article in the FreeBSD handbook on IPFirewall. 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? > > Thanks > > Ray > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message 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?3A8ABEFE.26D0AFF7>