Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost
From: Thomas Hertel (Thomas.Hertel_at_gmx.net)
Date: 12/30/03
- Next message: Neil Hindry: "Disappearing rules - please help!!"
- Previous message: NeoSadist: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- In reply to: NeoSadist: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- Next in thread: Jim Richardson: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- Reply: Jim Richardson: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:47:35 +0100
NeoSadist schrieb:
> I'd still rather "stealth" my ports so that maybe they'll not see me, and even
>then my router will be seen first.
But they _will_ see you, whether you stealth or not. The only
difference they will see is that in one case the port will be shown as
"closed" and in the other it will be shown as "filtered" or
"stealthed" or whatever. You have seen that a lot of times.
A closed port is just as closed as a stealthed port.
So what is wrong with sticking to the standard if violating it does
not give you any advantage whatsoever?
Regards
Thomas
-- If it´s good, they´ll stop making it. Mailadresse für Non-Spam: _Meine_Initialen_bei_arcendo_Punkt_com
- Next message: Neil Hindry: "Disappearing rules - please help!!"
- Previous message: NeoSadist: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- In reply to: NeoSadist: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- Next in thread: Jim Richardson: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- Reply: Jim Richardson: "Re: iptables: cannot talk to localhost"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
