Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:57:31 +0100
From:      Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk>
To:        "Patrick O'Reilly" <patrick@mip.co.za>, FreeBSD Question List <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: ipfw rules for FTP - passive vs. active
Message-ID:  <515708619.1004018251@geko>
In-Reply-To: <NDBBIMKICMDGDMNOOCAIKECNDMAA.patrick@mip.co.za>
References:   <NDBBIMKICMDGDMNOOCAIKECNDMAA.patrick@mip.co.za>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 October 2001 14:51 +0200 Patrick O'Reilly wrote,

This question isn't really FreeBSD related? :( - If you look in 
/etc/rc.firewall - theres a recomendation on a couple of good books that 
would help you :) Having said all that....

> I must point out that I have never got around to understanding the
> capabilities of ipfw's stateful rules.  If therein lies the solution then
> just a gentle prod with the clue stick would be much appreciated.

FTP is a notoriously hard protocol to firewall, because as you've found out 
- it needs connections to arbitary ports on both machines, both ways...

Infact, we almost gave up - we have our FTP server bound to a single IP 
address, and just firewall to that, permitting access to ports 20/21 etc. - 
and to any port over 1024.

We then make absolutely certain there are no other services bound to that 
IP address (e.g. if someone went and installed MySQL - and bound it to that 
port, that would be bad, as MySQL runs on port 3306 or similar, which would 
be allowed by the rules)...

Infact, as a kind of failsafe, I think we actually blocked MySQL, and a 
couple of other high-port services deliberately to that IP, 'just in case'

-Kp


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?515708619.1004018251>