[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Tonix (Antonio Nati)" <tonix at interazioni dot it>
 To:  sai <sonicsai at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Redesigning m0n0wall filter rules
 Date:  Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:34:38 +0100
I do not agree. What I propose is more simple and more secure.

You can have two ways of developing it:

1) add an option to change behaviour, from incoming to outgoing
Very easy, all "incoming" is changed to "outgoing". Same architecture, 
same screens, same forms, just one more flag in system setup.
No security risks. More simple to manage for complex environments, so 
even more secure than before.

2) add a mixed (incoming + outgoing) feature.
In such a case you must have only one rule page for all interfaces 
(instead of one rule page for each interface), where you put in the 
order you need both "incoming" and "outgoing" rules.
With such single page, you can easily manage all the firewall, deciding 
where to apply incoming and where to apply outgoing.
This would permit to have very few rules for all the system, where now 
we are forced to have hundreds of rules replicated for every interface.

I feel both of these two proposal improve security, and they transform 
monowall in a firewall able to handle also complex corporate 
environments with more easyness and less risks.

Tonino

sai ha scritto:
> Security and simplicity go together. If your ruleset is very complex,
> then you will have difficulties in managing it and debugging it.
>
> If you have incoming rules as well as outgoing rules, the ruleset will
> become very complex (and we dont know what the impact on performance
> will be).
> The current system means that it is easy to understand the ruleset
> applied to any interface. It may be administratively problematic with
> lots of typing and duplication but from a security point of view it is
> good.
>
> sai
>
>
> On 2/5/08, Tonix (Antonio Nati) <tonix at interazioni dot it> wrote:
>   
>> We are thinking how to extend/improve m0n0wall rules architecture.
>> After an intense work done with rules, we finally realize we need
>> something actual m0n0wall architecture cannot satisfy.
>>
>> Given our environment, with dozen of reserved VLAN and a few of servers
>> VLAN, actual m0n0wall behaviour of applying rules to "incoming"
>> interfaces forces us to apply same rules to dozens of VLAN, while rules
>> eventually applied to "outgoing" interfaces could be a lot more easy to
>> manage.
>>
>> Planning to put hands in code, we are thinking to add a system flag
>> (enable rules on output interfaces) and change rules to outgoing
>> interfaces if that flag is enabled.
>>
>> Obviouslly it would be better to have rules working both on "incoming
>> interfaces" and "outgoing interfaces", but it looks not easy to make
>> with ipfilter.
>>
>> Thanks for any comment/hint.
>>
>> Tonino
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>         Inter@zioni            Interazioni di Antonio Nati
>>    http://www.interazioni.it      tonix at interazioni dot it
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>
>>
>>     
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>
>   


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
        Inter@zioni            Interazioni di Antonio Nati 
   http://www.interazioni.it      tonix at interazioni dot it           
------------------------------------------------------------