Re: PGSQL x iptables
От | Craig Ringer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PGSQL x iptables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4A01407A.4080107@postnewspapers.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PGSQL x iptables ("Slansky Lukas" <Lukas.Slansky@upce.cz>) |
Ответы |
Re: PGSQL x iptables
Re: PGSQL x iptables |
Список | pgsql-general |
Slansky Lukas wrote: > 1. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT > > 2. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -s > aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd --dport 5432 -j ACCEPT > > 3. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited > > > > I was wondering when these rules are not OK for our environment. It > seems that rules 1 and 2 sometimes pass packets and therefore these > packets are rejected. After a long period of inactivity, perhaps? If you're relying on `-m state' or `-m ctstate' you should be using a TCP keepalive. Otherwise the connection tracking entry for the connection will be purged after a while - how long depends on your firewall configuration - and then packets will no longer be seen as part of an established connection. -- Craig Ringer
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: