[ANNOUNCE] Feature Freeze for iptables-1.2.7

Hi! I'm announcing a feature freeze for the iptables-1.2.7 release starting at 24 Jun 2002. After this date, only bugfixes will be accepted. The 1.2.7 release will most likely be out by Jul 01. Thanks. -- Live long and prosper - Harald Welte / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnumonk

Re: [PATCH] -M option unusable

On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 12:14:28AM +0200, Bart De Schuymer wrote: > Hello, > > This is just a small patch, guess the --modprobe option is not very popular :) > It's vs the CVS userspace iptables.c file. thanks, patch applied (although slightly differnet) > cheers, > Bart -- Live long and pros

Re: netfilter on solaris?

On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > Hi, > > It is a strange idea I know, but I'd be interested in what the opinion of > the core netfilter developers is on porting the whole netfilter subsystem to > Solaris? After my netfilter presentation at linuxtag, somebody wa

Re: netfilter on solaris?

On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:47:07PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > But how do you imagine the porting so that the maintenance would not > > become a nightmare? > > Of course I'd want to provide system independency using some headers which > would make it work on both Linux/Solaris, so it could

[RFC] how to write static int parse(...) function

Hello, I am writing options to the unclean module, so that we can: -m unclean --tcp, -m unclean ! --udp, etc. I have the kernelspace additions written. The userspace libipt_unclean.c need rewriting, and here i come across a problem: i do not know what all the functions and variables there mean.

Re: netfilter on solaris?

On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:55:30PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:47:07PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > As long as I am one of the maintainers of netfilter/iptables, I am not > going to do any extra hassle in order to support different operating systems. > This includ

Re: TCP/IP checksums and changing destination address

On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 08:03:38AM -0600, Shipman, Jeffrey E wrote: > I'm currently writing a netfilter module to modify > some options in TCP packets. Currently, I'm just > trying to learn a bit about it so I've written a > module that 1) Sets the PSH flag in all TCP packets > and 2) Modifies the

Re: netfilter on solaris?

On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:52:12PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It is a strange idea I know, but I'd be interested in what the opinion of > > the core netfilter developers is on porting the whole netfilter subsystem

Re: netfilter on solaris?

On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 03:37:25PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:52:12PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > It is a strange idea I know, but I'd be interested in what the opinion of >

defense against conntrack attacks

I noticed in http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO-3.html#conntrack reports that conntrack is a bottleneck. section 1 Here's a summary of some experiments that show this is true and further suggest that the real expense is in creating new conntrack records. If

a problem on visiting DMZ servers when apply DNAT?

we use linux as the firewall. we have a web server,as we made a DNAT rule on the firewall,the people can visit it from internet by address 202.38.128.1(just a example,not real). (202.38.128.1) internet--firewalllocalhost |(192