There are a VERY large number of packet dropping
schemes in existence, of which some have been
implemented for Linux and others have implementations
in Open Source environments that could probably be
ported.
I thought I'd be a nuisance and list the schemes I
know of and the status (as far as I kno
From: "Grant Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yes there is. Read my previous post
> (http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2006q4/019935.html) for more
> information. In short, what you want to do is enable IPTables (layer 3
> and up) to be able to operate on bridged (layer 2) traffic. "Bri
Ming-Ching Tiew wrote:
Subject almost says it all, I wonder if there is a way for me
to use iptables matches like l7 and/or ipp2p match in a
bridge ( one ethernet in and one ethernet out ) ?
Yes there is. Read my previous post
(http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2006q4/019935.html) for m
Subject almost says it all, I wonder if there is a way for me
to use iptables matches like l7 and/or ipp2p match in a
bridge ( one ethernet in and one ethernet out ) ?
Regards.
___
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-
Thanks for the quick response Jasbir. Tried doing as you said with no
luck, changed dport to port 8080 on the 4th line (see below). Same as
before if you remove line 1 the transparent proxy works.
iptables -P INPUT DROP
ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p IPv4 --ip-protocol 6
--ip-destination-por
William Bohannan wrote:
Trying to use the policy drop rule with the bridged firewall, when I
removed the first line the transparent proxy works great? It seems a
bit strange as from reading several articles on it I thought the
following occurs.
1st line - if it doest match it gets dropped on t
Trying to use the policy drop rule with the bridged firewall, when I
removed the first line the transparent proxy works great? It seems a
bit strange as from reading several articles on it I thought the
following occurs.
1st line - if it doest match it gets dropped on the local filter input.
2nd
