Re: PGSQL x iptables

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Slansky Lukas <Lukas(dot)Slansky(at)upce(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PGSQL x iptables
Date: 2009-05-06 07:47:06
Message-ID: 4A01407A.4080107@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Slansky Lukas 2009-05-06 08:07:15 Re: PGSQL x iptables
Previous Message John R Pierce 2009-05-06 07:41:29 Re: PGSQL x iptables