Ok, the same applies:
Linux doesn't write to the wire unless it has to (the address is not local).

Using lo is good to prevent the vserver from receiving traffic from the wire, thou...

Regards,
Nuno Silva

Lu�s Miguel Silva wrote:
Hello Nuno :o)

When i mentioned using lo for "sniffing protection" i was thinking about
protecting the vservers network data flow from other servers on the same
network! :o) (not about sniffing the data beetween vservers/root server).

Regards,
Lu�s Miguel Silva


Lu�s Miguel Silva wrote:

[..snip..]


Since i thought *somebody could sniff the data beetween vservers* i
choosed to bind them into the lo interface! That way they can still
communicate with each other and be "secure" ;o) [would somebody
correct me on this if im wrong?]
Ol� Lu�s!

In the default vserver .conf, the vservers' root can't control the
network interfaces, so vservers' root can't enable promisc mode and
can't run a sniffer.

If the vservers' root could enable sniffing (you added CAP_NET_* to the
vservers' capabilities list, for instance) then he could do it in eth0
or lo... So, afaict, chbind'ing to eth0: or lo: it's the same in terms
of "sniffer protection".

Um abra�o,
Nuno Silva


+-----------------------------------------
| Lu�s Miguel Silva
| Network Administrator@ ISPGaya.pt
| Rua Ant�nio Rodrigues da Rocha, 291/341
| Sto. Ov�dio � 4400-025 V. N. de Gaia
| Portugal
| T: +351 22 3745730/3/5  F: +351 22 3745738
| G: +351 93 6371253      E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| H: http://lms.ispgaya.pt/
+-----------------------------------------






Reply via email to