On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:16:34AM -0700, Chris Willis wrote:
> I am puzzled still. No one can explain why it is bloated junk. It would
> assist people who need to handle complex applications with their firewall.
Daniel gave a rather good explanation as to the logistical problems to
implement
I am puzzled still. No one can explain why it is bloated junk. It would
assist people who need to handle complex applications with their firewall.
Anyways, it isn't a big deal. I understand that netfilter on Linux can
perform this functionality. I will simply switch over to a Linux box as
= Original Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at 12-8-2002 15:39
>On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 02:46:00PM +0200, Daniel Polak wrote:
>
>> I tried that but it isn't working. I figured that might be because after
the
>> rdr the proxy has no way of knowing what the original destination port was
and
>> w
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 02:46:00PM +0200, Daniel Polak wrote:
> I tried that but it isn't working. I figured that might be because after the
> rdr the proxy has no way of knowing what the original destination port was and
> will try to connect on port 21 instead of 42 and 63.
ftp-proxy looks u
On 8/12/02 at 2:46 PM Daniel Polak wrote:
>= Original Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at 12-8-2002 14:32
>>Yes, use ftp-proxy(8) and redirect ports 42 and 63 similarly to port
21.
>>
>I tried that but it isn't working. I figured that might be because
after
>the
>rdr the proxy has no way of kn
= Original Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] at 12-8-2002 14:32
>Yes, use ftp-proxy(8) and redirect ports 42 and 63 similarly to port 21.
>
I tried that but it isn't working. I figured that might be because after the
rdr the proxy has no way of knowing what the original destination port was and
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 02:08:00PM +0200, Daniel Polak wrote:
> Regrettably I have a third party application that uses FTP on non standard
> ports.
>
> With IPF it was possible to proxy FTP on other ports than 21 like this:
> map ppp0 192.168.9.0/24 -> 0/32 proxy port 42 ftp/tcp
> map ppp0 192.
Regrettably I have a third party application that uses FTP on non standard
ports.
With IPF it was possible to proxy FTP on other ports than 21 like this:
map ppp0 192.168.9.0/24 -> 0/32 proxy port 42 ftp/tcp
map ppp0 192.168.9.0/24 -> 0/32 proxy port 63 ftp/tcp
Is something similar possible wit
Hi,
I'm asking something that hasn't an absolute answer, but everyone could give
his idea.
Is it usefull to log with PF ?
I mean, is it usefull to log at this level ?
If, for example, I let pass only HTTP traffic (port 80) and SSH (port 22) to
my server, why should I log portscanning or missed
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:21:26PM -0700, Chris Willis wrote:
> enet = ne3
> inet = xl0
> X=192.168.100.100
> If port 5000 from $X to any on $inet then
> pass all in $enet udp 4900-4901
> rdr udp 4900-4901 to $X
> else block in all in $enet udp 4900-4901
>
> X should be variable (depend
On Sunday, August 11, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Amir Seyavash Mesry wrote:
> But I will try to explain what I am wanting to do.
> My machine sends data on port 25 out, there is a rule for it to let the
> data out. But there is no corresponding rule to let the data in on port
> 25 to that ip. What I am
11 matches
Mail list logo
