Re: open ports with firehol

--- Daniel Pittman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Mike Mestnik wrote: Dose not connection tracking take care of both active and passive FTP? These both should fall under state RELATED not state NEW. The firehol script treats it as a complex service, because there are

Re: open ports with firehol

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Mike Mestnik wrote: --- Daniel Pittman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Mike Mestnik wrote: Dose not connection tracking take care of both active and passive FTP? These both should fall under state RELATED not state NEW. The firehol script treats it

Re: open ports with firehol

I thought CT was where Linux would see the ftp PORT cmd and expect the responding incomming connection. There is also a need to nat the PORT command this should be provided by the ftp-nat mod. With the PASV ftp cmd there should also be an expected outgoing connection. This may be a missing

SNAT and DNAT ftp PORT and PASV cmds.

On the debian-firewall list it was discussed that. SNATed ftp using the PASV cmd needed an outgoing rule. Other than state RELATED when all unmatched packets are DROPed. I am wondering what is the current status of the ftp connection tracking and ftp nat? Can ipfilter handle SNAT and DNAT ftp

RE: re: is that your document?

Hi there! Thanks for sending me some mail. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten it yet. Here's why. I get a ton of spam. Tons, actually. So I've set up a service called KnowSpam to help me deal. You're reading this message because KnowSpam doesn't know if you're a friend or foe. To prove you're