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

Re: Firewall and user services that needs open ports



The MLS Selinux policy go beyond  a  "everything a  file" acl and  offer  much more protection, at the expense di some
complexity

http://securityblog.org/brindle/2007/05/28/secure-networking-with-selinux/#more-19

Also james morris had post some useful docu on the subject in his blog.

Regards

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell gmail com> wrote:
Callum Lerwick wrote:


   Why do we need a firewall when you can easily prevent services from
   being accessed...just stop the service!  Don't bind to the port, and
   it won't be possible to connect to it.


Yes, the correct thing to do for local security is use something like selinux to prevent things from binding to interfaces/ports they shouldn't be binding to in the first place.

But what you usually want to control are the ranges of source/destination addresses that are permitted.

Using iptables for this is a completely unsustainable hack. iptables firewalling is for machines that route packets to other machines.

Unsustainable?  But it is what you need to do, not kill functionality completely.

Unfortunately for some reason network devices are exempt from the "everything is a file" architecture thus don't recieve the benefit of the pre-existing filesystem access control architecture.

Yes, this seems like a bizarre design decision in Linux but realistically, everything needs network access to be useful at all these days and what you need to control is where on the network something can/can't connect.

--
 Les Mikesell
  lesmikesell gmail com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


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