On 02/23/2018 02:44 AM, Spyros Stathopoulos wrote:
> On 23-Feb-18 02:17, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> On 02/22/2018 06:08 PM, James Andrewartha wrote:
>>> On 23/02/18 10:01, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>>> On 02/22/2018 05:39 PM, Spyros Stathopoulos wrote:
>>>>> As there is no access control
>>>>> from the device itself I can only limit the connection from shorewall.
>>>> The value in defining multiple zones within a LAN is to define different
>>>> rules/policies to/from the LAN. Because intra-LAN traffic within a
>>>> subnet does not pass through the Shorewall system, rules and policies on
>>>> that system are ineffective in controlling intra-LAN traffic. If
>>>> different disjoint subnets are defined, traffic between the subnets does
>>>> go through the Shorewall system, but such a setup is easily bypassed by
>>>> LAN users who have administrative privileges on their systems. The best
>>>> way to accomplish what you want is via firewall rules on itself.
>>> What about putting the device on a separate interface and using
>>> shorewall's bridge firewall feature?
>>> http://shorewall.net/bridge-Shorewall-perl.html
> So would it make sense to put the device in a different subnetwork (say
>, create a VLAN (eg. eth1:0) and a new zone out of eth1:0
> and do SNAT into the new subnetwork? I have done that to access me PPP
> modem on the WAN interface and it works but it is connected to a
> physical interface (eth0). Would such a similar approach work with VLANs?

Yes. And you don't need SNAT in that case.

Tom Eastep        \   Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with
Shoreline,         \     an international standard?
Washington, USA     \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't
http://shorewall.org \   understand

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Shorewall-users mailing list

Reply via email to