[Firewall] Other possible bug in dyndns plugin

Robert Bain jimmy at retro-hosting.co.uk
Thu Jul 14 14:14:11 CEST 2011


So basically what your saying is you want the ability to cause a DOS 
effect when someone DOS's the IP address behind the router.

On 14/07/2011 13:09, ∫imøn ㋡ wrote:
> I think the user is who must decide if open or not all ports to an IP. 
> It is assumed that when he does this is because he is fully confident 
> in that IP.
> In my case, for example, I want open all ports of my remote server to 
> my own PC (I'm the administrator).
> If I want open all ports to my PC, it's much more comfortable define 
> only the IP without ports.
> By other side, the actual script doesn't complain when I report one IP 
> without ports.
>
> El jue 14 jul 2011 14:03:50 CEST, Arno van Amersfoort escribió:
>> Well it's not really a bug. This is just by design. I'm not sure 
>> whether opening all ports by default is a good idea. Making it 
>> explicit (the way it is now) seems like a more secure solution...
>>
>> On 7/12/2011 11:42, ∫imøn ㋡ wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> When I add an IP without port, the firewall doesn't open nothing to 
>>> that
>>> IP. It should open all ports to that IP.
>>> Regards.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Firewall mailing list
>>> Firewall at rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl
>>> http://rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/firewall
>>> Arno's (Linux IPTABLES Firewall) Homepage:
>>> http://rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Firewall mailing list
> Firewall at rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl
> http://rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl/mailman/listinfo/firewall
> Arno's (Linux IPTABLES Firewall) Homepage:
> http://rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl



More information about the Firewall mailing list