Thanks for working on it Wilder !!

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <
wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We discussed that one yesterday and I already assigned the issue to myself
> on Jira. I will fix it.
>
> Cheers,
> WIlder
>
>
>
> > On 30 Jul 2015, at 14:09, Sanjeev N <sanj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Agree with Kishan Kavala and Jayapal.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Kishan Kavala <kishan.kav...@citrix.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This is a security issue with high impact.
> >> We should treat it as a blocker.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [mailto:jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: 30 July 2015 02:07 PM
> >> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Blocker] Default ip table rules on VR
> >>
> >> I see VR ingress traffic is blocked by default from iptables mangle
> table.
> >> But on the guest interface all the traffic is accepted.
> >> Also egress firewall rule will break because of FORWARD policy.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jayapal
> >>
> >> On 30-Jul-2015, at 12:53 PM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi <
> >> jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It is security concern on the VR. All the ingress traffic onto the VR
> is
> >> accepted.
> >>> Let it be blocker.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jayapal
> >>>
> >>> On 30-Jul-2015, at 12:28 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I changed it to critical. It is only a blocker if we agree on this
> >>>> list that it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Sanjeev N <sanj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In latest ACS builds, the ip table rules in VR have ACCEPT as the
> >>>>> default policy in INPUT and FORWARD chains, instead of DROP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Created a blocker bug for this issue
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8688
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can somebody please fix it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Sanjeev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daan
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to