[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Sheflug] Re: Iptables



On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 11:55, shef-lug-admin [at] list.sheflug.org.uk wrote:
> >you can fool the firewall into thinking that the incoming connection is
> >related to an existing one, then you've got your way around the
> >firewall.
> Like opening a connection  - using say irc - and then passing special
> packets ..?

Kind of. Active ftp is the most fun one - if you can provoke an internal
ftp connection going out to a site (IE exploit?), or you can fool
ipchains/tables into thinking the incoming connection is related to an
existing ftp connection, you can connect to any machine on the internal
network, for example.

> Re "unroutableness" of RFC 1918 ip addresses.  I imagine that most Internet
> routers would drop packets destined to and from those ranges.  Though I
> notice Blueyonder uses a 10.x.y.z address for its internal dhcp servers - is
> this standard practice for isp's and network carriers ..?

Only intelligent routers tend to drop those packets. For example, do a
tracepath to some 'private' address - I tried 10.0.0.1. I got seven hops
before it stopped routing. It actually got all the way to Telehouse.

> Re that sort of thing.  How does the order of the rule sets work in
> iptables.

Top to bottom.

> I'm trying to portforward some services and would like internal
> clients to use the same address as external clients.

Not going to work; don't even bother. Use a split DNS system to provide
internal addresses to internal clients and external addresses to
external clients.

Cheers,

Alex.

PS - Richard - the mailing list appears to be screwing the From:
address. Can we get this fixed? Thanks!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part