search for: secureworks

>> 3. I'm intrested in blocking kazaa/P2P trafic with IPFW any help in this issue you could possibly block connections at known p2p ports. deny tcp from any to any 6699 step but most of the newer protocols use dynamic ports and in turn, are configurable. so ipfw isn't exactly ideal on it's own for this. -r. -----Original Message----- From: Pons [mailto:pons@gmx.li] Sent:

Hi. On my FreeBSD 4.8 configured IPFW2+IPF+IPNAT and I use them all: - IPFW - traffic accounting, shaping, balancing and filtering; - IPFilter - policy routing; - IPNAT - masquerading. I want to know, how IP-packets flow through all of this components? What's the path? incoming: IPFW Layer2 -> IPFW&Dummynet -> IPNAT -> IPFilter ? outgoing: IPFW Layer2 ->

Hello Can someone help. I have a real need to have ssh working with OS390 Unix System Services. IBM said that they would like it there as well, but they said the openssh organization has issues with this. Can you help me understand what the deal is or issues are??? Thanks, Bill O'Donnell

...d rather not have to run ypset on clients where this condition exists with their local NIS servers, and I'd really like to not have portmap bound on certain interfaces. I could filter it of course, but I was hoping someone had another option that they were aware of ... TIA -- Matthew George SecureWorks Technical Operations

Hello Folks, The official email address for this list is `freebsd-security@freebsd.org'. Due to convention, there is an email alias for this list: security@freebsd.org, just as there is for hackers@ & freebsd-hackers@, arch@ & freebsd-arch@, and so on. The security@freebsd.org alias has been the source of occassional problems. Several times in the past, postings have been made to

Hi, I''ve been working the past 8 hrs combatting DDoS attacks on websites and dedicated servers I host for clients. They''re hitting one specific IP address, but coming from thousands of external IP addresses. I use: shorewall-4.0.10-3.noarch How can I tackle this? I''ve blocked many subnets in the blacklist file but it''s made very little difference. If

I've read about securelevel in the mailing list archive, and found some pitfalls (and seems to me to be discarded soon). But According to me, the following configuration should offer a good security: - mount root fs read only at boot; - set securelevel to 3; - do not permit to unmount/remount roots fs read-write (now it is possible by means of "mount -uw /"); - the only way to make

I will shortly be replacing a couple of proprietary VPN boxes with a FreeBSD solution. Section 10.10 of the Handbook has a detailed description of how to do this. However I remember a lot of discussion about a year ago about whether the gif interface was necessary to set up VPNs like this or whether it was just a convenience, for "getting the routing right". A number of people said

I've been using ipfw for a while to create a router with NAT and packet filtering, but have never combined it with stateful filtering, instead using things like "established" to accept incoming TCP packets which are part of a conversation initiated from the "inside". I'd like to move to using keep-state/check-state to get tighter filtering and also to allow outgoing

Howdy list, Sorry if this is a frequently discussed topic, or an off-topic question, but I couldn't find much info about my question by performing quick searches in the archives, and my question is pretty tightly related to security... Background: =========== I have a number of FreeBSD machines. Most are 4.x, but a few are 5.x (mainly the testing/devel machines). I also have a single Red