On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:59:46 -0700, artw wrote:
> Many thanks for your help. It works well. I can follow the logic of your
> two steps and see how it works.
>
> But I don't understand why can't we do it with one rule like this:
>
> Filter #: X,1
> Filter Type= TCP/IP Filter Rule
> Active= Yes
> IP Protocol= 6 IP Source Route= No Destination:
> IP Addr= 0.0.0.0
> IP Mask= 0.0.0.0
> Port #= 80
> Port # Comp= Equal
> Source: IP Addr= 10.15.51.11
> IP Mask= 255.255.255.255
> Port #=
> Port # Comp= None
> TCP Estab= No
> More= No Log= None
> Action Matched= Forward
> Action Not Matched= Drop
>
> Assuming we want to drop everything except port 80 of #11. When I do
> this, the #11's browser cannot access the Internet. Is it because the
> browser is using other ports in addition to port 80 ??? What's wrong???
That should work also, for plain HTTP connections at least. You'll
probably also want to add additional (similar) rules to handle ports 443
(HTTPS) and perhaps 8000 and 8080 (which are commonly used as alternative
ports - but also for publicly-accessible proxies!)
To be honest, if you want to set outbound policies, I don't really think
that ZyXEL's filter is up to the job. It's hard to create a *maintainable*
inbound/outbound policy using only 4 x 6 = 24 rules (maybe the 650 is less
limited than the models I've seen). It's probably worth your while looking
at some of the "professional" firewall products out there - start with
Astaro Security Linux <http://www.astaro.com> and work your way up (if you
feel the need).
Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security:
www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/>