Bug 104777 - Broken iptables syntax to allow all ICMP
Summary: Broken iptables syntax to allow all ICMP
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: redhat-config-securitylevel
Version: 1.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Brent Fox
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-09-21 05:41 UTC by Dax Kelson
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-10-16 20:12:00 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dax Kelson 2003-09-21 05:41:46 UTC
Description of problem:

The fix for bug #104561 is broken currently.

To allow ICMP in general use:

-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT

Not the incorrect/unsupported syntax:

-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
redhat-config-securitylevel-1.2.8-2

Question: Given the fact that this rule exists:

-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

Where the RELATED matches any ICMP errors messages that the host needs to see --
why is it wanted that ICMP is allowed in general???

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2003-09-22 03:54:58 UTC
'-p icmp --icmp-type any' is perfectl valid syntax for me. What version of
iptables do you have installed?

Comment 2 Dax Kelson 2003-09-22 04:29:18 UTC
iptables-1.2.7a-2

I installed redhat-config-securitylevel-1.2.8-2 on RHL9.

I can see someone else might do the same. I would suggest (if you still want to
allow ICMP in general) going with my recommended rule as it will work with old
and new versions of IP Tables:

-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT

Comment 3 Brent Fox 2003-10-14 23:10:58 UTC
notting: should I make redhat-config-securitylevel require iptables >= 1.2.8-12?

Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2003-10-15 02:52:13 UTC
You can, it won't hurt.

Comment 5 Brent Fox 2003-10-16 19:41:07 UTC
notting: what I'm asking is this: will making redhat-config-securitylevel
require a newer iptables solve this problem?  That would prevent someone from
installing the latest r-c-securitylevel on RHL 9 without upgrading iptables as well.

Comment 6 Bill Nottingham 2003-10-16 20:01:03 UTC
Yes, it will solve that.

Comment 7 Brent Fox 2003-10-16 20:12:00 UTC
Ok, should be fixed in redhat-config-securitylevel-1.2.11-1 in Rawhide.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.