[Firewall] Other possible bug in dyndns plugin
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:
>>> When I add an IP without port, the firewall doesn't open nothing to
>>> IP. It should open all ports to that IP.
>>> Firewall mailing list
>>> Firewall at rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl
>>> Arno's (Linux IPTABLES Firewall) Homepage:
> Firewall mailing list
> Firewall at rocky.eld.leidenuniv.nl
> Arno's (Linux IPTABLES Firewall) Homepage:
More information about the Firewall