On 9/15/14, 2:37 PM, Eric Norum wrote:
> I expect that I've missed something obvious here....
Hi, Eric.
I assume you've confirmed that it works if you turn off the Linux
machine's firewall?
Also, is "128.3.128" a valid network IP address? I don't do a lot
in the firewall space, but I feel like I usually see that written as
"128.3.128.0"; does that make a difference?
Lastly, and this is more of a hijack of your thread (sorry), but the
first rule is saying to accept any UDP packet from the specified network
with a source port of 5064. That means an attacker can connect to *any*
UDP port on that Linux machine as long as their source port is 5064.
That seems pretty lame.
Lewis
- References:
- EPICS vs. Firewalls Eric Norum
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
RE: Keithley 2400 communication Brown, Garth
- Next:
Is RULES_JAVA broken? Nerses Gevorgyan
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
<2014>
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
EPICS vs. Firewalls Eric Norum
- Next:
Re: EPICS vs. Firewalls Konrad, Martin
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
<2014>
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|