From: "Bruno Wolff III" <[email protected]>
CodeHeads <[email protected]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I searched the archives and google and did not find what i was
This is my setup:
Web Server with virtual hosts; FC4; IPTables and SELinux Running
My questions is which is better, IPTables or hosts.deny???
You want to use iptables. There may be some benefit to using
in that you can do dns look ups at the time of connection rather than
the rules are set up. While you don't want to depend on DNS for
is reasonable to use it do deny access in most situations.
I read some where, cannot remember, that hosts.deny does not read httpd
For apache, you can configure allowed and denied hosts in httpd.conf
don't need hosts.deny/allow.
I am mostly concerned in blocking IP ranges with either.
For this case it is probably best to build these restrictions into your
Please, may I be obnoxious and introduce Belt and Suspenders to Mr.
Elastic Band, who is expected to work with them?
In depth defense is worth while. It also allows for interesting
fine tuning potentials.
There is a significant difference between hosts.deny and iptables.
Iptables is a firewall, therefore it is the first line of defense
between your computer and the outside world. If you want to make sure
something or someone doesnt get into your computer, use Iptables.
Hosts.deny is another layer of protection but it only works with TCP
wrapped applications. Some examples of TCPwrapped apps are sshd,
xinetd, and sendmail... you can tell if an application uses TCP
wrappers by the command
strings -f /usr/sbin/sshd | grep hosts_access
Because, apache does not use TCP wrappers, hosts.deny would be
ineffective for http requests.
Ed Kim, RHCE
ed.kim AT rhatbox.com