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