Linux - Security This forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here. |
| Notices |
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.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
02-02-2007, 08:42 AM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Distribution: Mint 13
Posts: 524
Rep: 
|
iptables: allow 1 IP for everything
Hi!
I would like to have a confirmation about the following rule:
Quote:
|
iptables -A INPUT -s xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx -j ACCEPT
|
I want with this rule that the IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is allowed to use any port, is it correct? |
|
|
|
|
02-02-2007, 12:06 PM
|
#2
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Rep: 
|
Presuming there is not another rule earlier in the chain that will interfere with it, then yes, that rule looks correct for what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2007, 12:40 PM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Distribution: Mint 13
Posts: 524
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anomie
Presuming there is not another rule earlier in the chain that will interfere with it, then yes, that rule looks correct for what you want.
|
Thanks for answering. What do you mean? How could another user interfere? |
|
|
|
|
02-02-2007, 01:21 PM
|
#4
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Distribution: RHEL, Scientific Linux, Debian, Fedora
Posts: 3,935
Rep:
|
Not a user; a rule (please read my post again). For example, if there is a rule earlier in the chain that jumps to DROP for any connections to port 80, then your rule is going to be affected by that.
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2007, 06:06 PM
|
#5
|
|
Member
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Distribution: Mint 13
Posts: 524
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by anomie
Not a user; a rule (please read my post again). For example, if there is a rule earlier in the chain that jumps to DROP for any connections to port 80, then your rule is going to be affected by that.
|
Thank you for your confirmation. |
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 PM.
|
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
|
 Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|
