Bug 472950

Summary:	RFE: Relax firewall rulecheck to accept either -J REJECT or -j DROP as final rule for ipv4/6?
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks>
Component:	sectool	Assignee:	Daniel Kopeček <dkopecek>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	dkopecek, jhrozek, pvrabec
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-01-07 09:30:05 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Valdis Kletnieks 2008-11-25 19:16:50 UTC

Description of problem:
Since the last line of the ruleset is:
[0:0] -A INPUT -j DROP
maybe sectool shouldn't complain with:
Custom IPv[46] "INPUT" chain is the last rul in INPUT chain with policy ACCEPT and doesn't contain REJECT rule which should be the last rule in chains with this policy.

It's still an open discussion if it's better to use -j REJECT (protocol proper, but allows an attacker to elicit responses), or -j DROP (make it harder to elicit response packets).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
sectool-0.9.1-3.x86_64

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Daniel Kopeček 2008-11-27 10:22:26 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> Since the last line of the ruleset is:
> [0:0] -A INPUT -j DROP
> maybe sectool shouldn't complain with:
> Custom IPv[46] "INPUT" chain is the last rul in INPUT chain with policy ACCEPT
> and doesn't contain REJECT rule which should be the last rule in chains with
> this policy.
> 
> It's still an open discussion if it's better to use -j REJECT (protocol proper,
> but allows an attacker to elicit responses), or -j DROP (make it harder to
> elicit response packets).

Thanks for feedback. I've fixed this in git.

Comment 2 Fedora Update System 2008-12-01 23:28:13 UTC

sectool-0.9.2-2 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sectool-0.9.2-2

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2008-12-03 01:25:36 UTC

sectool-0.9.2-2 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sectool'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10649

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2009-01-07 09:29:46 UTC

sectool-0.9.2-2 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.