Re: Firewall without network Stack
From: Carlos Amaya (camaya@compramerica.com)Date: 09/29/01
- Previous message: Craig Holmes: "Re: masqerading vs. application proxy"
- In reply to: Kyle Wheeler: "Firewall without network Stack"
- Next in thread: Vincent Labrecque: "Re: Firewall without network Stack"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-ID: <002a01c148fc$32ac5dc0$0c00000a@compramerica.com.sv> From: "Carlos Amaya" <camaya@compramerica.com> To: "Kyle Wheeler" <memoryhole@cheerful.com>, "Focus on Linux Mailing List" <FOCUS-LINUX@securityfocus.com> Subject: Re: Firewall without network Stack Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:34:14 -0500
why would you want to do that?
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Wheeler" <memoryhole@cheerful.com>
To: "Focus on Linux Mailing List" <FOCUS-LINUX@securityfocus.com>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: Firewall without network Stack
> I've seen, somewhere, a project that was making a "shadow firewall" - a
> Linux box that just dumped everything from the network card to a
> user-land application (the kernel didn't have a network stack compiled)
> and let that handle filtering and routing packets. I'm trying to find it
> again...
>
> Has anyone seen anything like this?
>
> If not... any suggestions for places to look to begin hacking the kernel
> to make my own?
>
> ~Kyle Wheeler
> --
> If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember what you said.
> -- Mark Twain
>
>
- Previous message: Craig Holmes: "Re: masqerading vs. application proxy"
- In reply to: Kyle Wheeler: "Firewall without network Stack"
- Next in thread: Vincent Labrecque: "Re: Firewall without network Stack"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|