On 06/02/2011 10:55 AM, Mr Dash Four wrote:
> 
>> It is NEW *or* INVALID.
>>   
> That may pose a problem then. The existing catch-all I have has ctstate
> NEW and slaps an "unauthorised_t" mark on every NEW packet regardless
> what happens down the chain.
> 
> Since the mark listed in my security alert log has this packet marked as
> "unlabeled_t" (that is an indication that no secure marking was applied
> to that packet), that makes me think the ctstate was not new and that
> the packet may have been invalid, hence escaping my catch-all secmark
> statement.
> 
> That is fine and I suspect your patch would work if that was the case,
> but this would present a problem with packets which are NEW *and*
> INVALID 

That is impossible! A packet is in one and only one state.

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep        \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who
Shoreline,         \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like
Washington, USA     \ all of the passengers in his car
http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe,
secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about.
Get your free trial download today. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to