the password on console, im sure, is not suppose to provide datacenter 
security.
im pretty sure most of the people here are using m0n0wall personally.
Its would be more of a nuub stopper, just something so that when your 
friends/little sister
come by, they are halted. They arent gonna reboot the machine and boot 
into single user mode
and reset the password.


hopefully
[return reciept off, very sorry about that]


Manuel Kasper wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Radoslaw Krupa wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi, is it possible to shape traffic on range of IP address? I would like to
>>have some host (ie. 10.0.1.10~10.0.1.99) have 128 kB/s per host and some
>>(ie. 10.0.1.100~10.0.1.120) to have 256/s kB per host. And some users demand
>>more for theirs specific needs (ie me playing Counter-Strike :)). How can I
>>setup that ?
>>    
>>
>
>Sure. Add two shaper rules, one with source any and a destination of the
>first subnet (you can't enter ranges, only subnets - use a subnet
>calculator - you may have to adjust your ranges a bit so you can make them
>fit between subnet boundaries), mask = destination, bandwidth = 128.
>Same for the second rule, but use the other subnet and bandwidth = 256. No
>rule for your gaming hosts (= unlimited). Voilà.
>
>  
>
>>One more thing comes to my head - for security reasons it will be good to
>>have a password on console. How about that Manuel?
>>    
>>
>
>Not planned. Physical access = booom. Security through obscurity = not
>desirable. And even on those routers where there is a console password,
>there is always a reset switch that you can use once you have physical
>access to it. So they're not better at all - they just take more work in
>case you forget the password or something.
>
>- Manuel
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>
>  
>