On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 12:45, Jack Bowling wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Shawn wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 10:31, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > > > I should also note that you have only mentioned cost-related issues, which > > > are independent from "security consciousness". Given that the BitTorrent > > > code is Open Source, and can/has been freely audited by lots of people, > > > then I should expect that an RH-sponsored BitTorrent would not pose any > > > significant security risks to the consumer. > > > > Opening any more ports than I hvae to is a security risk, regardless of > > whether or not that port is used by "audited" code. > > I was under the impression that iptables statefulness was enough to > allow BitTorrent without poking holes in your firewall???? > No, because BitTorrent is designed to accept incoming connections from other peers. These are "new" clients that haven't had a connection previously, so there is no "state" to be stateful about. So you need to open/forward the port. --Jeremy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part