Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
SDN 101: An Introduction to Software Defined Networking
Discover the advantages of SDN.
SDN has quickly become one of the hottest trends in IT. But not all SDN solutions offer real software-defined functionality. As more enterprises consider SDN, they want to know, “What is SDN? And what are the real benefits?” If you're ready to explore the advantages of SDN, and want to know how it should be implemented within your enterprise, start by reading our introductory white paper.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
What's up people! I got a simple question that hopefully there is a simple answer to.
I have stood up a FTP/File/Web server on a single box using Ubuntu's LAMP server distro. I also use IPCop's Firewall distro as my LAN's Router/Firewall. I want to know if there is a significant difference in placing the LAMP server in the Firewall's DMZ for public access or shielding the server behind the firewall and poking holes it to the services on the server for public access. Basically what are the pros and cons. Thanks.
Last edited by MykeV; 08-22-2007 at 10:24 PM.
Reason: add tags
Thx for the referral tip back to IPCops FAQ on DMZ's. However, IPCops assertion on how to setup a publicly accessible server is not the end all to be all. I was hoping to get differing points of views from the members or guests of this forum on what method they used for making their servers publicly available and why. I hope that makes my question a little clearer.
Using a dmz gives you a bit more protection. Using a dmz, should your lamp server become compromised the firewall will help shield your internal lan from aforementioned nasties. This is all assuming the firewall is set up properly.
What docalton wrote is true. On the simple surface, a DMZ server is just as safe as a server on the LAN. In either case, you have the firewall with ports forwarded to machines behind it. Where the DMZ comes through as being safer is that when "properly" set up, the DMZ is on a both a separate subnet and ideally an entirely separate physical network from your LAN. That means in general, one line from the firewall to the LAN hub/switch, and another to the DMZ hub/switch, and no machine can be both on the LAN and on the DMZ.
The advantage of doing it this way is should somebody/something compromise the exposed server on the DMZ, they don't have access to the LAN. Generally, the LAN can access the LAN, DMZ and WAN, the DMZ can only access the DMZ and WAN, and the WAN can only see into the open addresses/ports on the DMZ, but has no direct access to the LAN.