Hello Scott,

>> It is possible to remove the dependency, but there is a reason why
>> p9100 (and a few other packages) are compiled with libwrap support. LEAF
>> is modular, so it is possible to use LEAF without shorewall as a pure
>> router or printserver (or whatever), libwrap gives some extra security
>> in the cases where iptables/shorewall isn't installed.
>>
> What you say makes sense (including what followed, about hosts.allow not
> being part of pppd.lrp) but I'll offer this counter-position.
>
That should be p9100.lrp I guess ;-)

> To have two places where one must permit an IP address (shorewall &
> hosts.allow) is a little obtuse, IMO.
>
That's true, but if you are changing network settings from their defaults
there is a change other things have to be changed too. This is not only
true for /etc/network/interfaces, shorewall and hosts.allow/deny but also
/etc/hosts /etc/resolv.conf and other places. Most of the basic settings
are grouped in the "Network Configuration menu" (including allow and deny
settings).

> In terms of LEAF as a non-shorewall router, etc I'd propose that since
> the default LEAF distro includes shorewall that might tip the scales in
> favour of recognizing that shorewall rules are the better, *single* place
> for IP restrictions to be placed. Also, newbies (the people most likely to
> get tripped up by this double-permission requirement) are less likely to
> be able to solve this, then someone who is employing LEAF as a
> non-shorewall device, whose users are much more likely to be able to
> self-solve, recompile with libwrap support, etc.
>
When using the Bering-uClibc image without changing the settings of the
local network nothing has to be changed in hosts.allow/deny. If an user
changes the local subnet he has to change a lot of things, this is not
something I would advice newbies todo. Besides if he screws up, at least
he has double protection.

> Maybe 2 pppd.lrp packages - one default for use with shorewall (no
> dependency on hosts.allow) and one standalone? (recognizing too that more
> packages = more work for the kind, volunteer maintainers).
>
I don't think this will improve the situation...

> This conundrum all might all originate from trying to make LEAF do more
> than one thing - firewall & router vs router vs print server (doing two+
> things - and the commensurate double-permissions requirement, is maybe a
> not-unexpected outcome of trying to do more than one thing and causing
> neither task to be performed optimally).
>
LEAF is perfectly capable of doing multiple tasks, it's just linux. It all
depends on which packages you load.

> Is there any reason that someone who wants to use LEAF as a, say, print
> server, *shouldn't* use shorewall to effect IP addy restrictions? (Saving
> space on a floppy is obvious but is there anything more substantial? And
> true, adding in a complex package like shorewall vs compiled-in libwrap
> support exposes a greater risk of code-bug that impacts security).
> Anything else?  :)
>
Yes, there are reasons. I also use LEAF as a VOIP server (using Yate) on
my DMZ, there is no need for shorewall on that box, it will make things
even more complicated when adding that.

>
> Anyway, I'm obviously not an impartial party here but wanted to offer
> the devil's advocate position, in terms of identifying the 'cost'
> associated with the 'benefit' of this multiple-use strategy.
>
Very much appreciated.

> Too, things that make life tough for newbies (I'm not one, FWIW) are a
> Bad Thing, again IMO.
>
>
> Regardless of the final decision I thank you for your taking the time to
> reply and explain.
>
It's an interesting discussion, I'm also not sure what the best solution
is so any argument is appreciated.

> (I also like what Hillel Seltzer said, in terms of "hosts.lpd instead of
> hosts.allow'" and IMO think that would be a alternate, ideal solution since
> hosts.lpd could [TTBOMK] be safely made a part of the pppd.lrp package?!)
>
That's not possible, hosts.allow (and deny) are config files for the
libwrap library. It has nothing todo with the p9100.lrp package itself and
you can't change the filename.

> scott; canada
>
Eric





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/

Reply via email to