Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-24 Thread Matthew Carpenter
That's what I mean by nasty... Retaliation (albeit mild). That's the way to go IMHO. Just haven't had the time to automate one. On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:31:23 -0500 Douglas J Hunley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Carpenter babbled on about: I've done a bit of civil using the standard

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-24 Thread Bill Campbell
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 01:40:09PM -0500, Matthew Carpenter wrote: That's what I mean by nasty... Retaliation (albeit mild). That's the way to go IMHO. Just haven't had the time to automate one. One of our ISP customers was being mail bombed from an ISP, and when I called their technical

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-22 Thread Douglas J Hunley
Myles Green babbled on about: Is that in your script Doug? If so, I'm gonna give it a whirl 'cause I've got 6 or 7 IIS ...errm.. Users... contributing to excessivly large http_access logs =( nope. the code for that is in hte archives of this list over at mail-archive.com if it's just

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-22 Thread Myles Green
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:51:03 -0500 Douglas J Hunley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Myles Green babbled on about: Is that in your script Doug? If so, I'm gonna give it a whirl 'cause I've got 6 or 7 IIS ...errm.. Users... contributing to excessivly large http_access logs =( nope. the code for

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-20 Thread Matthew Carpenter
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:02:03 -0500 Douglas J Hunley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually, I prefer to let the hits in, as I have things in place to trap them and .. uh.. deal with the offending machine g Are we talking about civil or nasty modes? I've done a bit of civil using the standard

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-16 Thread Douglas J Hunley
Lavinius Romio Petru babbled on about: So far so good, but you can be using --sport too to only allow connections from priveleged ports, and I olso played with something like example? where in this code would it go? advantages? disadvantages? this /sbin/iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-13 Thread Chang
This is fun. Too bad my ISP has blocked port 80. And I also failed to patch kenrel 2.4.17 with the patch-o-matic. -m string --string 'cmd.exe' -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset Might be more fun to make the target -j MIRROR and send the request back where it came from. -- The pivotal

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-12 Thread =?x-user-defined?q?toylet=2Elinuxism=5B=A4p=AA=B1=B7N=5D?=
No. The last one was posted by me. It's really rudimentary, and have gotten some nice remarks from Mr. Bandel. I didn't go over with a fine tooth comb, and I'm not anything near a guru. Is this the same thing you posted a day or sao back or are there changes to it this run around? --

RE: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-12 Thread Lavinius Romio Petru
So far so good, but you can be using --sport too to only allow connections from priveleged ports, and I olso played with something like this /sbin/iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --tcp-flags ACK ACK --dport 80 \ -m string --string 'cmd.exe' -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset and add it permanent

Re: opinions on this iptables script

2002-01-12 Thread David A. Bandel
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:29:30 +1000 Lavinius Romio Petru [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed into the bitstream: So far so good, but you can be using --sport too to only allow connections from priveleged ports, and I olso played with something like this /sbin/iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --tcp-flags