Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions.

I burned off Smoothwall, IPCop, Clark Connect, Monowell and pfSense. I installed all of them and spent around half an hour with each of the web interfaces. Shorewall looked promising in theory but did not have Wifi shaping which is something I was after. After having a good play with all of them

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions

Jack Olszewski writes: >> Only heard good reports of monowall >> >> But for mine, iptables is easy enough once you understand it. ... > > Firehol, a pretty high level language of writing iptables rules > (http://firehol.sourceforge.net/, also available as an rpm package) > might be of help. It is

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions

> Only heard good reports of monowall > > But for mine, iptables is easy enough once you understand it. > ... Firehol, a pretty high level language of writing iptables rules (http://firehol.sourceforge.net/, also available as an rpm package) might be of help. It is for me. Cheers, -- Jack --

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions.

Glen Cunningham wrote: G'day Harrison, On Monday 02 March 2009 19:57, Blindraven wrote: Smoothwall is out of the question due to its lacking NIC driver support. Have you considered IPCop (an early fork from smoothwall) or Endian

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions.

G'day Harrison, On Monday 02 March 2009 19:57, Blindraven wrote: > > Smoothwall is out of the question due to its lacking NIC driver > support. > Have you considered IPCop (an early fork from smoothwall) or Endian (a commercial fork from IP

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions.

Blindraven wrote: Based on my set-up, which of the following would you recommend and why? pfSense, MoNoWaLL, Clark Connect. (Do you know any others?) ubuntu-server and shorewall. the documentation for shorewall two-interface setup should be all you need. http://shorewall.net/two-interfa

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions.

Only heard good reports of monowall But for mine, iptables is easy enough once you understand it. Kind Regards Kyle Blindraven wrote: Based on my set-up, which of the following would you recommend and why? pfSense, Mo

[SLUG] Firewall Distributions, Questions.

# cross post /u-au/slug I am looking to set up a hardware firewall using an old computer and a Linux distribution and am curious about a few things. To start with, I'll attempt a diagram to show you how my network is currently set up. My home network is set up like so :

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 19:59 +1000, Christopher Vance wrote: > Soekris (US) make the net4801, and PC-Engines (Switzerland) make > the WRAP. Both companies make a range of boards. > > Yawarra distributes both in Aus with a variety of cases available, and > sells wireless cards which work well with

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 19:59, Christopher Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:27:46PM +1000, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > >Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:27:46 +1000 > >From: Sridhar Dhanapalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fir

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:27:46PM +1000, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:27:46 +1000 From: Sridhar Dhanapalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions To: SLUG list On Tuesday 11 July 2006 11:01, Christopher Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 11:01, Christopher Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:31:16AM +1000, Simon Wong wrote: > >The biggest problem I have come across looking at these is finding > >something with 3 NICs without spending a fortune on a multiple interface > >card from In

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:21:36 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A lot of work. Not really. Modifying the case to allow for the extra NIC took the most time, the rest was just Linux installation & configuration which is quick & easy. > Satisfying. Yes. > About 200M last time I counted, alt

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

Christopher Vance wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:31:16AM +1000, Simon Wong wrote: The biggest problem I have come across looking at these is finding something with 3 NICs without spending a fortune on a multiple interface card from Intel. The soekris and pc-engines wrap both have 3 NICs, an

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 01:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 2. Small form factor pc with some sort of solid state memory running > > linux. > > I'm doing this at home.  I'm running a cut-down ubuntu dapper > installation, initially installed as a breezy server then any packages I > didn't need remo

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:31:16AM +1000, Simon Wong wrote: The biggest problem I have come across looking at these is finding something with 3 NICs without spending a fortune on a multiple interface card from Intel. The soekris and pc-engines wrap both have 3 NICs, and are available from Yawar

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

> I'm after opinions on the following two options in terms of a straight > firewall. Since I have never used OpenWRT devices before I don't have any > idea how they rate against a full pc running as a firewall. > The only caveat is that it (the fw) has to allow for a DMZ, and may have > to run m

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

Phil Scarratt wrote: Hi I'm after opinions on the following two options in terms of a straight firewall. Since I have never used OpenWRT devices before I don't have any idea how they rate against a full pc running as a firewall. The options are: 1. OpenWRT on a Linksys device 2. Small form

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 17:45 +1000, Phil Scarratt wrote: > 2. Small form factor pc with some sort of solid state memory running linux. The biggest problem I have come across looking at these is finding something with 3 NICs without spending a fortune on a multiple interface card from Intel. Anothe

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:45:51 +1000, Phil Scarratt wrote: > 2. Small form factor pc with some sort of solid state memory running linux. I'm doing this at home. I'm running a cut-down ubuntu dapper installation, initially installed as a breezy server then any packages I didn't need removed, fo

[SLUG] Firewall Device Opinions

Hi I'm after opinions on the following two options in terms of a straight firewall. Since I have never used OpenWRT devices before I don't have any idea how they rate against a full pc running as a firewall. The options are: 1. OpenWRT on a Linksys device 2. Small form factor pc with some so

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 14:02 +1000, James Gray wrote: > If you need to manage multiple firewalls with a consistent > policy/framework across multiple platforms (Linux/BSD and even Cisco > PIX, Linksys, etc too) then "fwbuilder" might be another candidate. Fwbuilder is a personal favourite too. I h

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi > my ongoing frustrations: > > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings do > work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help > http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/26/155

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

On Saturday 08 July 2006 14:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you want something simple, firehol is pretty good. Debian (and > > therefore probably Ubuntu) has a bunch of example config files that > > are really easy to use. The advantage to say shorewall (although > > things may have changed) is

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:20:20 +1000 Metrics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:33:44AM +1000, Sonia Hamilton wrote: > > * On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:19:21PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables > > > settings do w

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

Metrics wrote: On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:33:44AM +1000, Sonia Hamilton wrote: * On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:19:21PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings do work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:33:44AM +1000, Sonia Hamilton wrote: > * On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:19:21PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings > > do > > work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help > > http://

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

* On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:19:21PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings do > work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help > http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/26/1556259 (no lokkit or guarddog > can b

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

On Saturday 08 July 2006 05:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi > > my ongoing frustrations: > > > > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings > > do work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help > > http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/26/155625

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:19:21 +0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi > my ongoing frustrations: > > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables > settings do work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not > help http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/26/1556259 (no lo

Re: [SLUG] Firewall

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi > my ongoing frustrations: > > 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings do > work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help > http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/26/1556259 (no lokkit or guarddog > can be found

[SLUG] Firewall

Hi my ongoing frustrations: 1) How to setup a firewall in ubuntu? It seems suitable iptables settings do work but that's awefully primitive. This article did not help http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/26/1556259 (no lokkit or guarddog can be found by apt-get) 2) How to manipulate and co

[SLUG] Firewall log

What does this mean? I have a modem connection that times out after 5 hours - dial on demand. When it restarts, my firewall log shows *lot* of these entries: Feb 27 13:22:42 kernel: Shorewall:all2all:REJECT:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:20:35:73:71:2a:00:50:bf:e6:77:b1:08:00 SRC=192.168.1.4 DST=192.168.1.2

Re: [SLUG] Firewall log

I will take a stab Log entry 1 is comming in on eth0, and machine 192.168.1.4 is making a bootp/dhcp request, which you machine is reject. Log entry 1 is going out on eth0 from 192.168.1.2 which is a reply to the boot/DHCP request from before. Note from memory the dchp server attachs to the in

Re: [SLUG] firewall logfile analysis

It is said that Hilton De Meillon wrote: >I am using Gentoo. I use Metalog as a logger. I use Fwbuilder to design >my rulesets. What can I use to analyse my log files - I have tried >fwanalog but it does not look like it likes the way Metalog logs. > >any recommendations ? First, for live analasy

[SLUG] firewall logfile analysis

Hey All, I am using Gentoo. I use Metalog as a logger. I use Fwbuilder to design my rulesets. What can I use to analyse my log files - I have tried fwanalog but it does not look like it likes the way Metalog logs. any recommendations ? Hilton. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Hi, Since it came up, I've done a fair amount of hacking recently to get IPCop to install via PXE. Useful because most of these appliance boxes don't contain a floppy disk drive, and the FD controller is fairly hard to get at even when you open the box up. Red Hat is easy because they give you PX

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Kevin Saenz wrote: Has anyone installed Linux on these thin clients? What are the things I would have to be concerned about? Hi, I have Red Hat 7.3 running on a couple and IPCop running on some more of them. -- Del -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.s

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Hi Kevin, Yes we use a Mini-iTx motherboard. Our box and the Everything Linux are roughly the same size ours is 295 x 260 x 65mm (W x D x H) If you want an internal PSU (also fanless) and the option of 2 PCI slots go for our box. Our market is mainly firewalls. If you want an external PSU go fo

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Has anyone installed Linux on these thin clients? What are the things I would have to be concerned about? > It is said that Kevin Saenz wrote: > >Maybe Anthony could tell me where I should look. :) > >I thought it would be under hardware. > > http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/cat/systems/thinclie

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Thanks that looks good. > It is said that Kevin Saenz wrote: > >Maybe Anthony could tell me where I should look. :) > >I thought it would be under hardware. > > http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/cat/systems/thinclients > > - Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Kevin Saenz Spinaweb I.T consul

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

It is said that Kevin Saenz wrote: >Maybe Anthony could tell me where I should look. :) >I thought it would be under hardware. http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/cat/systems/thinclients - Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.sl

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

what are the dimensions of the box. This system seems to be based vaguely on the concept of mini-box motherboard. but uses a 240 volt input rather than a 12 volt. > Hi Kevin, > > We can do 3 Eth easily with our box > > http://www.traverse.com.au/products/default.asp?p=42 > > The Fanless mod

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Maybe Anthony could tell me where I should look. :) I thought it would be under hardware. > It is said that Kevin Saenz wrote: > >I am looking for a box that will be about the size of > >an ADSL router, with about 512 RAM, multi NIC prefered min 3, > >to build a firewall. Does anyone know where I

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

It is said that Kevin Saenz wrote: >I am looking for a box that will be about the size of >an ADSL router, with about 512 RAM, multi NIC prefered min 3, >to build a firewall. Does anyone know where I could source >such a box? It would be helpful if it had a CPU and NVRam I beleive everythinglinux.

Re: [SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Hi Kevin, We can do 3 Eth easily with our box http://www.traverse.com.au/products/default.asp?p=42 The Fanless model has no moving parts. Drop me a line if you are interested. Cheers, - Guy. At 01:39 PM 6/10/2003 +1000, you wrote: Hi all, I am looking for a box that will be about the s

[SLUG] Firewall appliance box

Hi all, I am looking for a box that will be about the size of an ADSL router, with about 512 RAM, multi NIC prefered min 3, to build a firewall. Does anyone know where I could source such a box? It would be helpful if it had a CPU and NVRam -- Regards, Kevin Saenz Spinaweb I.T consultants

Re: [SLUG] Firewall / router for BigPond

Guarddog is pretty good on Linux www.simonzone.com -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: [SLUG] Firewall / router for BigPond

> Dear list, > > Before I reinvent the wheel. I am looking at using VNC to control Win98 > boxen remotely. > > I need a firewall / router for basic protection, is there any cheap routers > eg DLink that are worth it? > > It is easy enough to just use IPTables but is there a template / > pre-writt

[SLUG] Firewall / router for BigPond

Dear list, Before I reinvent the wheel. I am looking at using VNC to control Win98 boxen remotely. I need a firewall / router for basic protection, is there any cheap routers eg DLink that are worth it? It is easy enough to just use IPTables but is there a template / pre-written rules floati

[SLUG] Firewall / IP Monitor

I am looking for a program which will act as a firewall, do port forwarding, and monitor all the traffic that comes in and out, I would like it to basically report on how much data has passed through for each internal IP Address and if possible to enable and disable certain internal IP Addr

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

This one time, at band camp, Glen Turner wrote: > -- expand until their configuration file syntax >is Turing-complete (sendmail, Emacs, iptables). > -- proliferate options beyond human ken (ls, ps). > -- provide a handful of differing APIs and subsystems >to perform the same task, each with

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Someone wrote... > >> >>And totally unimplementable on a machine where the same binaries can have >> >>different MD5 sums across different installations, e.g. the one you all are >> >>(most likely) reading this mail on now. > >Why whould they b

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I've found a few bits of Linux software which do part >of the job. They associate a particular pathname with >network permission. What they don't do as far as I can >tell is associate a pathname + md5 with a particular >port/protocol/directio

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

This one time, at band camp, Matt M wrote: > > >>And totally unimplementable on a machine where the same binaries can have >>different MD5 sums across different installations, e.g. the one you all are >>(most likely) reading this mail on now. > >Unless the MD5 sums table is build when you install t

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

Someone wrote... > >>And totally unimplementable on a machine where the same binaries can have > >>different MD5 sums across different installations, e.g. the one you all are > >>(most likely) reading this mail on now. Why whould they be different? I guess I'm sorta asking what do you mean by in

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

I've found a few bits of Linux software which do part of the job. They associate a particular pathname with network permission. What they don't do as far as I can tell is associate a pathname + md5 with a particular port/protocol/direction. (though it's possible I haven't browsed hard enough)

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

Rob B wrote: Unix software rule: Do one thing, and do it well Windows sofware rule: Do everything Can't say I've ever noticed that. I have noticed that UNIX programs either: -- expand until their configuration file syntax is Turing-complete (sendmail, Emacs, iptables). Think about

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

At 23:49 29/01/2003, Matt M sent this up the stick: And totally unimplementable on a machine where the same binaries can have different MD5 sums across different installations, e.g. the one you all are (most likely) reading this mail on now. Unless the MD5 sums table is build when you install

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

And totally unimplementable on a machine where the same binaries can have different MD5 sums across different installations, e.g. the one you all are (most likely) reading this mail on now. Unless the MD5 sums table is build when you install the machine/software or configure the feature. Ma

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

This one time, at band camp, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > >> In your first post, you talk about md5 *signature*, now about md5 >> checksums. These are 2 different things. Checking file integrity is >> definitively not the job of the networking stack at all. > >Minh is talking about a feature of some 'host

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

I think the problem is that Minh is a little confused about what exactly a firewall is (No thanks to windows "personal firewall" vendors, I'm sure). In my, perhaps a little conservative view, it's just a packet filter, whether you're referring to a black box or an application on a host. The tal

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

> It's not useless, though it can of course be compromised easily if the firewall > software doing the checksumming runs as the same user as the application itself, > which is the case under most versions of windows. In fact, already some viruses > disable the firewall, and put up an icon in the

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 02:06:44PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > In your first post, you talk about md5 *signature*, now about md5 > > checksums. Those terms seem to be used interchangeably. > > These are 2 different things. Checking file integrity is > > definitively not the job of the netw

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

> In your first post, you talk about md5 *signature*, now about md5 > checksums. These are 2 different things. Checking file integrity is > definitively not the job of the networking stack at all. Minh is talking about a feature of some 'host firewalls' that checks the md5 checksum of software t

RE: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

because there're > many aspects of security that's handled by different things. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Jean-Francois Dive > Sent: Saturday, 25 January 2003 23:45 > To: Minh Van Le > Cc: [EMAIL PR

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

On 27 Jan 2003 08:42:10 +1100 Kevin Saenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ ... ] . You would > be required to install the firewall on each machine, as it will > behave like an antivirus doing live checks on files, which is very > expensive in resources. Not really, it only has to do once on loading.

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

> Not really, it only has to do once on loading. With the windows firewall > Minh Van Le mentioned (kerio) and another one (zonealarm) the extra > load is unnoticeable, even on a lower end machine. (my windows machine > is a amd k2-350) You're lucky. I guess it depends on the user that installs

RE: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

all-end-all solution, because there're > many aspects of security that's handled by different things. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Jean-Francois Dive > Sent: Saturday, 25 January 2003 23:45 > To: Mi

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

Linux iptables have the possibility to make matches based on userid, groupid, windows based networking could apply the same technique i suppose. In any case, you better check that the passwd is not accessible from the 'bad' processes. Tripwire check file integrity, this have nothing to do with ne

Re: [SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

It sounds like you are talking about packet analysers, you could have a look at www.snort.org there is some info with configuring snort with iptables to create an active firewall. Tripwire is pretty much useful to inform you after the fact that someone has modified a file on you system, as long a

[SLUG] Firewall MD5 signatures on processes

Various firewalls for Windows(TM) have a feature that identify, permit, and deny packets sent by authorised applications. (I use Kerio Personal Firewall [www.kerio.com]). These firewalls use a method for creating and checking MD5 signatures on applications that attempt to access the low-level netwo

Re: [SLUG] Firewall log entry

> Jan 16 11:36:27 kernel: Shorewall:all2all:REJECT:IN= OUT=eth0 > SRC=192.168.1.2 DST=192.168.1.4 LEN=328 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 > ID=64962 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=68 DPT=67 LEN=308 ^^^ Is your DHCP not working? :-) - Jeff -- "I look forward to someday pu

[SLUG] Firewall log entry

Hi, I puzzled - what does this mean? SRC is the IP of my firewall, DST is the machine that I am currently working on. Jan 16 11:36:27 kernel: Shorewall:all2all:REJECT:IN= OUT=eth0 SRC=192.168.1.2 DST=192.168.1.4 LEN=328 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=64962 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=68 DPT=67 LEN=308 Th

RE: [SLUG] firewall

> > Hi Michael, > > I've been using 64MB Compact Flash for 0.1.1 > > IPCop 0.1.2 final was just released a few days ago so I will > try this today > and see if it still fits in 64MB. > > If you want to have a go at this you will find a utility > called mkflash in > the IPCop CVS. > > Cheers, > >

RE: [SLUG] firewall

Hi Michael, I've been using 64MB Compact Flash for 0.1.1 IPCop 0.1.2 final was just released a few days ago so I will try this today and see if it still fits in 64MB. If you want to have a go at this you will find a utility called mkflash in the IPCop CVS. Cheers, - Guy. At 14:32 29/12/02

RE: [SLUG] firewall

> Hi Gaza, > > Try IPCop it's great. I'm using 0.1.2 and have used 0.1.1 > prior to that for > nearly a year > > www.ipcop.org > > v0.1.2beta = 2.2.23 > v0.1.3alpha = 2.4.20 > > It's small enough to fit on a Compact Flash, and includes > support for 3 > PSTN, ISDN, Ethernet and PCI ADSL. For ADSL

Re: [SLUG] firewall

Linux is Linux, For my firewall I have used RedHat, now I am using Mandrake, probably move to another distro later on. As for the firewall you only have one free option, iptables that comes standard in the kernel. There are a few guis that will help in building a firewall, also there are a few tut

Re: [SLUG] firewall

Hi Gaza, Try IPCop it's great. I'm using 0.1.2 and have used 0.1.1 prior to that for nearly a year www.ipcop.org v0.1.2beta = 2.2.23 v0.1.3alpha = 2.4.20 It's small enough to fit on a Compact Flash, and includes support for 3 PSTN, ISDN, Ethernet and PCI ADSL. For ADSL Bridged ethernet, PPPoE

Re: [SLUG] firewall -> Smoothwall, IPcop

* Gaza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have an old PII 200Mhz pc I would like to load linux on it and make it a > firewall > I was wondering what linux could I use and what firewall software could I > use. Check out Smoothwall www.smoothwall.org - a firewall appliance distro. Doesn't require much l

Re: [SLUG] firewall

On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 15:12, Gaza wrote: > I have an old PII 200Mhz pc I would like to load linux on it and make it a > firewall I run a single floppy distribution on an old 486. Bering from http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ It is easy to use and configure, uses Shorewall to configure iptables. Chee

[SLUG] firewall

I have an old PII 200Mhz pc I would like to load linux on it and make it a firewall I was wondering what linux could I use and what firewall software could I use. Thanks in advance Merry Christmas everyone Gaza -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.s

Re: [SLUG] firewall blocking telnet to smtp port

Thanks Malcolm, I operlooked the fact that all the new rules I was adding were below the "drop/log all" section. Once I changed this, all was fine ahhh. Regards Anthony >From: Malcolm V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [SLUG] firewall blocking telnet to smtp port

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 23:30, Anthony Gray wrote: > Chain INPUT (policy DROP) > target prot opt source destination > firewall icmp -- anywhere anywhere > firewall tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp > flags:SYN,RST,ACK/SYN > firewall udp --

[SLUG] firewall blocking telnet to smtp port

Hi Guys, I'm trying to test smtp by telneting to it but I am being blocked by the firewall on the server running the smtp daemon. I've tried adding iptables rules to allow me through however nothing I am doing is working. If I disable the firewall totally, then my telnet works. Currently the i

Re: [SLUG] firewall allergic to kernel 2.4.18.

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:31:17PM +1000, James Gregory wrote: > A little while ago I posted about my poor firewall that was running at > half speed after a fairly major upgrade. > > I was reasonably convinced it wasn't hardware, so today I decided I'd > try un-upgrading bits and pieces to see

[SLUG] firewall allergic to kernel 2.4.18.

A little while ago I posted about my poor firewall that was running at half speed after a fairly major upgrade. I was reasonably convinced it wasn't hardware, so today I decided I'd try un-upgrading bits and pieces to see what was wrong. I firstly un-upgraded pppd back to the version I had on

Re: [SLUG] firewall bewilderment

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, James Gregory wrote: > My problem is that the new firewall set up runs quite literally half as > fast as the old configuration. I have no idea why. By this I mean that > the download from mirror.aarnet I'm currently doing (which as I > understand it is routed through sydne

[SLUG] firewall bewilderment

So a little while ago I made the discovery that Sydney Uni (which I happen to attend) had a reasonably recent mirror of debian. I decided that this was a great chance for me to upgrade the debian install on my firewall (mostly so I could get a 2.4 kernel, which I ended up not getting after a d

Re: [SLUG] firewall

Ken Wilson wrote: > thanks for modem answers and ISP stuff > Megan gave me a hand and found that the firewall was stopping email and > web on high setting, anyone have some firewall rules that they would > like to share. I only do personal dial up email and www stuff. no > network, no server.

[SLUG] firewall

thanks for modem answers and ISP stuff Megan gave me a hand and found that the firewall was stopping email and web on high setting, anyone have some firewall rules that they would like to share. I only do personal dial up email and www stuff. no network, no server. thanks Ken -- SLUG - Sydn

Re: [SLUG] Firewall Hardware

Wow, That's about a 2 degree increase for every hour of plane flight :) -30 to +30 should be an interesting transition. Adam - Original Message - From: "Bob Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:26 PM Subjec

[SLUG] Firewall Hardware

OK chaps, many thanks for the many responses. I'll sort through them and make a hard copy to bring to OZ with me. Regards to all. Temp minus 10 Celsius. Should be minus 30 by the time we leave Dec 19. Bob Bob Hubbard St.Albert, Ab CANADA -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List -

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

> It may be a crock, but its an expensive one if you get caught. I > doubt the fine is worth the $100 savings from not buying a new > external modem. Possibly not - I checked this AGES ago with out Telstra rep. and he basically said that Telstra are responsible up to the socket on the wall (for

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

David Fitch was once rumoured to have said: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:50:46PM -0600, Bob Hubbard wrote: > > Thanks, C. Didn't know about the modem certification and thanks for the > > tip re ISP. Not sure what is meant by Data over Voice ISDN but will > > certainly check it out. > > i wouldn't

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

> Re your comment about cable/adsl not available another option is > satellite. Again telstra/bigpond have it, also www.ihug.com.au > and various ihug resellers (most of whom do a better deal than > going direct to ihug). I gather there's others too but I haven't > manage to find out about them

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 06:50:46PM -0600, Bob Hubbard wrote: > Thanks, C. Didn't know about the modem certification and thanks for the > tip re ISP. Not sure what is meant by Data over Voice ISDN but will > certainly check it out. i wouldn't worry too much about the modem and Austel/ACA certifica

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

Thanks, C. Didn't know about the modem certification and thanks for the tip re ISP. Not sure what is meant by Data over Voice ISDN but will certainly check it out. Regards, Bob -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinf

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

Craige McWhirter was once rumoured to have said: > G'day Bob, apart from Central Coast removed> are you aware that your .ca gear may require some > sort of power adapters to function in Aus? One other important thing is telephony equipment - If you have any existing modems, phones, NTUs, etc, th

Re: [SLUG] Firewall hardware

On 26 Oct 2001, Craige McWhirter wrote: > G'day Bob, apart from Central Coast removed> are you aware that your .ca gear may require some > sort of power adapters to function in Aus? Thanks, Craige. I think I have everything organized as far as power is concerned. The CPU power supply has a sl

  1   2   >