Re: [PATCH] DHCPv6 connection tracker helper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 01:07:18PM +0900, Darren Willis wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 20:18, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > why not just adding the rule that allows udp traffic for this?
> Distros don't seem to want to (see the bug I linked where some red hat
> people have decided a module is the way to go). Possibly people are
> concerned that such a firewall rule leaves a port open on the local
> link permanently (and possibly with an /sbin/dhclient binary, or
> similar, listening on it).
> DHCPv4 seems to get away with it because, IIRC, it uses raw sockets
> and bypasses netfilter completely. So it's still open, but people
> don't tend to think/know about it (this isn't really a good thing...)

I see.

> > I still don't see the need for this extra module if you can get it
> > done with iptables itself.
> I think it's nice to firewall things as much as is feasible, and this
> particular case isn't really complex at all. All this module does (and
> all that needs doing) is lets through the first reply to the right
> port, and after that normal connection tracking takes care of it.
> Possibly in the future conntrack should have some kind of extendable
> broadcast/multicast helpers module that can set up simple helpers like
> this for various different protocols (mDNS, etc)

Yes, we need some appropriate broadcast/multicast tracking. I don't
like the idea of using the expectation infrastructure for this, but
well, it's what we have by now.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Netfitler Users]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Photo]

Powered by Linux