Firewall with Ubuntu
 

Joseph <ubuntu@e-pops.org> wrote:


> I suppose this gives me another questions. There are three options
> here, in apparently two types, which are:
>
> IPTables
> Firestarter (for gnome) or Guarddog ( for KDE)
>
> What's the difference in them? How are Firestarter and Guarddog (a
> simple GUI front end) similar and how are these two different from the
> IPTables which is......??

iptables is the kernel code that actually handles the filtering,
together with some command line tools to configure it.

All the other "firewalls" are really just front ends for iptables.

To use iptables manually you need some knowledge about TCP/IP and
networking in general and gives you all the power and flexibility of
iptables (if you need that). Some shell scripting skills may come
handy.

The front ends are usually less powerful but often require less
knowledge and/or make it easier to manager large and complex rule
sets.



Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Firewall with Ubuntu
 

Joseph wrote:
> I have installed Shorewall.... now if I can find out where it was put in my menus, I might be ok....
>
>
Shorewall won't be in the menu because it is a command line application.
Open up a terminal and type "man shorewall".

Ranmadhu

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Firewall with Ubuntu
 

Florian Diesch wrote:
> Joseph <ubuntu@e-pops.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I suppose this gives me another questions. There are three options
>> here, in apparently two types, which are:
>>
>> IPTables
>> Firestarter (for gnome) or Guarddog ( for KDE)
>>
>> What's the difference in them? How are Firestarter and Guarddog (a
>> simple GUI front end) similar and how are these two different from the
>> IPTables which is......??
>
> iptables is the kernel code that actually handles the filtering,
> together with some command line tools to configure it.
>
> All the other "firewalls" are really just front ends for iptables.
>
> To use iptables manually you need some knowledge about TCP/IP and
> networking in general and gives you all the power and flexibility of
> iptables (if you need that). Some shell scripting skills may come
> handy.
>
> The front ends are usually less powerful but often require less
> knowledge and/or make it easier to manager large and complex rule
> sets.
>
>
>
> Florian


Thank you so very much. You've been very helpful. I don't know much (if anything) about TCP/IP and
networking, and certainly nothing about shell scripts.

That's why I was wondering about the front end programs. It helps me when it's a little simpler to
operate.... but where I can still learn the innards.

Again, thanks....

Joseph


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Firewall with Ubuntu
 

Ranmadhu wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>> I have installed Shorewall.... now if I can find out where it was put in my menus, I might be ok....
>>
>>
> Shorewall won't be in the menu because it is a command line application.
> Open up a terminal and type "man shorewall".
>
> Ranmadhu
>

WOW! Now I have some learning to do...




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Firewall with Ubuntu
 

hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 02.04.2008, 17:49 +0200 schrieb Markus Schönhaber:
> As Oliver said: Ubuntu's default install is very secure in the sense
> that it only accepts network packets which are replies to packets you've
> actively sent (for example the response packets from a web server you
> requested a web page from). All others are rejected.
> And this is achieved without any packet filter rules but by not
> installing any service that actively accepts new requests from the
> network - and then letting the network stack do it's work.
wonderful explanation :)

>
> In case you wonder: All those vendors of "personal firewalls" for
> Windows don't sell security. They sell a warm and cosy feeling.
hey, but they made a fortune telling people they need local packet
filters to save you from DoS attacks (where a script thats just
refreshing your IP would surely be cleverer and more effective) and made
the word firewall an elastic term to match everything that sees network
packages passing by from a distance :)

local packet filters are moot as long as you know what you are doing and
what kind of server software you installed ... they might be helpful if
you dont, but then you need to gain the knowledge about your packet
filter to not misconfigure it and rip even bigger holes in the system
than any apps you install could open.

my advise would always be, keep an eye on the list of server apps you
install and know (or find out by looking at the config and shipped docs,
its linux after all :) ) what system defaults they are changing ...

... or subscribe to the next firewalling lesson in your local adult
education programme ;)

ciao
oli
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users