I am not sure if it was the default behavior to check ident for 10
seconds on wu-ftp or not, but I think in that time either the firewall
or the ftp client "lost interest" and went on its merry way - to the
dismay of the user.
I have only had isolated incidents, so I assume it is not the default
behavior
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee.Field [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 5:15 AM
To: WBChmura; fw-1-mailinglist
Subject: FW: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules?? - FTP problems
too
I have come across this problem over the last few days. We have an NT
client connecting to a Linux FTP server which would take about 10
seconds to
connect. Opening IDENT between the two servers solved the problem and
it is
now instant.
Very strange....
Lee Field
Security Systems Administrator
-----Original Message-----
From: bill chmura [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 5:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules?? - FTP problems too
I was dropping IDENT then I ran into a problem with an external FTP
server. It was wu-ftp supporting an IDENT lookup. With the Idents
being dropped it would just hang and never finish connecting.
-----Original Message-----
From: DMENGEL [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 12:13 PM
To: fw-1-mailinglist
Cc: DMENGEL
Subject: FW: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
Whether or not you include an any-any-ident-reject rule will depend on
your
SMTP mail volume. In an environment where many thousands of SMTP
messages
are passing through the firewall in a day, the rule is vital or else
your
mail queue will become hopelessly backed up. This happened at one of my
v4.1 customers.
Daniel Mengel, MCSE, CCSE
Info Systems, Inc., Wilmington, DE
http://www.infosysinc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kumar, Preet (Exchange) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:34 AM
To: 'J�rgen Waibel'; 'Francis Lee'; Dolinar, Jon;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
If you reject the ident then the firewall will send back a RST to the
mailserver and
there will be no more delay from the mailserver.
If you drop it then the mailserver will send the ident 3-4 times till it
timesout and then proceeds.
I opted for reject. Faster, No unwanted packets to and from your
network.
;-))
Preet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J�rgen Waibel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:38 AM
> To: 'Francis Lee'; Dolinar, Jon;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: AW: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
>
> This is a result of the smtp/ident procedure at all. The smtp-receiver
> starts back an ident-request to find out the sending user.If there is
no
> ident service or the request is blocked this will result in the delay
> seen. After receiveing a response from the ident server or (after the
> timeout) without a response the smtp process will continue as usuall.
> SMTP does not depend on a working ident-server and it should even work
> totaly without it. And if for 'cosmetic' resons the dropt/rejected
packets
> should be in the logfile, why not use a reject rule without logging.
>
> -jw
>
> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Francis Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Mai 2000 15:44
> An: Dolinar, Jon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
>
>
> What I found out from my experience is that, unless I allow ident to
the
> mail server, the mail client will have hard times sending mails. That
is,
> it'll take about 30 seconds for the mail client to send an email to
the
> server.
>
> Sniffer shows that the initial 3-way handshaking occurs immediately
but it
> took a long time (and sometimes the mail client will say there's a
> connection timeout) to have the mail sent.
>
> -fl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Dolinar, Jon
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:26 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
>
>
>
> Hmm I tried all 3 ways and it seems some mail servers will not
> send/receive mail without being able to IDENT?
>
> maybe I am wrong but I am struggling with this now.
>
> Also could anyone explain why I see packets like this I am
currently
> dropping them based on a rule dropping all but IDENT to/from my
firewall
>
> I also have a previous rule accepting and scanning incoming
SMTP?
>
>
>
> Service Src Dst
> Proto S_port
> varies outside_host MY FIREWALL
> TCP SMTP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kumar, Preet (Exchange) [ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:10 AM
> To: 'John Gesualdi'; fw
> Subject: RE: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
>
>
>
>
> Instead of dropping the ident reject them.
>
> Preet
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Gesualdi [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 8:57 AM
> > To: fw
> > Subject: Re: [FW1] Do I need these two rules??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > First, thanks to all who have replied on this subject.
> >
> > I tried disabling the ident rule, things continued to run well
> but I
> > noticed many
> > more drops in my firewall logs. Apparently my www,mail and dns
> server
> > located in the
> > DMZ behind the firewall use ident and without this rule I get
many
> more
> > drops in my
> > logs so it's more of a cosmetic problem. I'm probably going to
> leave it in
> > unless
> > someone else has a better idea?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John Gesualdi wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm reviewing all the rules in my firewall. I have a
couple
> of old
> > rules
> > > that don't seem to make sense any longer.
> > >
> > > Rule1 = any_host any_destination long_icmp
drop.
> This
> > rule was
> > > put in a long time ago for the Ping of Death DOS attack. We
are
> running
> > fw1 vers
> > > 4.0sp5 on Solaris 2.6. Do I still need this rule?
> > >
> > > Rule 2 states that my Web server and dns,smtp server
located
> in the
> > DMZ can
> > > do "ident" with any host. Why would I need this?
> > >
> > > Thankyou.
> > >
> > > --
> > > John Gesualdi
> > > The Providence Journal Company
> > > Phone (401)277-8133
> > > Pager (401)785-6938
> > > CCDP,CCNP
> > >
> > >
> >
>
========================================================================
==
>
> > ======
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the
> instructions
> > at
> > >
<http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html>
>
> > >
> >
>
========================================================================
==
>
> > ======
> >
> > --
> > John Gesualdi
> > The Providence Journal Company
> > Phone (401)277-8133
> > Pager (401)785-6938
> > CCDP,CCNP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
========================================================================
==
>
> > ======
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the
> instructions at
> >
<http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html>
> >
>
========================================================================
==
>
> > ======
>
>
>
>
***********************************************************************
> Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation,
> solicitation,
> offer or agreement or any information about any transaction,
> customer
> account or account activity contained in this communication.
>
>
***********************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
==
> ======
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the
> instructions at
>
<http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html>
>
>
========================================================================
==
> ======
>
***********************************************************************
Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation,
offer or agreement or any information about any transaction, customer
account or account activity contained in this communication.
***********************************************************************
========================================================================
====
====
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions
at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
========================================================================
====
====
========================================================================
========
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions
at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
========================================================================
========
************************************************************************
**
This message originated from the Internet.
Users are warned against trusting content of such messages.
************************************************************************
***
************************************************************************
**
From Swiss Life (UK) plc
The Swiss Life (UK) Marketing Group comprises :
Swiss Life (UK) plc for insurance and pension products.
Reg No 2529609. Regulated by the Personal Investment Authority.
Swiss Life (UK) Services Ltd marketing associate.
Reg No 844703. Regulated by the Personal Investment Authority.
Registered Offices: Swiss Life House 24 - 26 South Park
Sevenoaks Kent TN13 1BG England. All incorporated in England
Swiss Life Investment Management Ltd managers of a UCITS.
Reg No 175316. Incorporated in Ireland.
************************************************************************
***
________________________________________________________________________
______
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information
visit-
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
========================================================================
========
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions
at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
========================================================================
========
