Check out the contents of /usr/share/doc/packages/bind8. BIND's logging
config is way beyond the scope of this list.
Good luck,
Tobias
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hipolito A. Gonzalez M. [SMTP:hgonzale@celularshow.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 2:58 PM
> To: Reckhard, Tobias; suse-security(a)suse.de
> Subject: Re: [suse-security] Bind
>
> Reckhard, Tobias wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Have you tried more extensive logging or perhaps execution in debug mode?
> That will give you many more hints than are available from the default
> logging.
>
>
> How can I put the extensive logging? Thank you.
>
>
> --
> www.geekcode.com <http://www.geekcode.com>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCS/cc/e/it d++ s+:+ a-- C++$ UL+++$ E++ W+++$ w--- O----
> M V- PS PE+++ Y+ PGP- t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b++ DI-- D+ G e++$
> h! r++ y++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> - A veces creo que hay vida en otros planetas, y a veces creo que
> no. En cualquiera de los dos casos, la conclusión es asombrosa
> (Carl Sagan)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Tobias,
would you give hints how to run named in debug mode ? I am having the same
problem
It logs however:
Apr 2 06:00:41 mand sshd2[10183]: DNS lookup failed for "x..x.42.2".
Apr 2 06:01:11 mand sshd[10183]: fatal: Read from socket failed: Connection
reset by peer
Antal
--------------------------
webmaster
Kreorg Oktatóközpont
Tel/Fax: 321-0031
email: webmaster(a)kreorg.hu
When running 'SuSEfirewall check' I get the following output:
/sbin/SuSEfirewall: split-brained.: command not found
/sbin/SuSEfirewall: host/network.: No such file or directory
/sbin/SuSEfirewall: dmz/intern: No such file or directory
/sbin/SuSEfirewall: addesses!: command not found
ipchains produced errors, no default routing set up?
ipchains produced errors, no default routing set up?
ipchains produced errors, no default routing set up?
What is this telling me? The firewall appears to be working.
--Thanks, Mike
> following i want to use for internet topology:
>
I'm snipping your ASCII art for brevity.
> Internet -- eth0 62.153.xxx.190/255.255.255.192 (= /26)
> Router outside
[DMZ: 62.153.xxx.134/255.255.255.224 (= /27)
> Router inside/Firewall
> eth0 (local Lan) 192.168.2.29
>
> It's only an Idea from me, is it possible to set up the DMZ like this,
> I've an ip-range of 64 addresses ( network 62.153.xxx.128/255.255.255.192)
>
OK, you've got an official 26-bit network. You can subnet that into two
27-bit networks, yes. However, you should apply that mask to the outside
interface as well and have your ISP modify his interface accordingly and add
a route to the DMZ subnet, pointing at your router. This is the most
straightforward and hard to mess up solution.
Alternatively you can fake the non-existence of your DMZ by mucking around
with Linux' IP capabilities. The two alternatives I can think off right now
are proxy arp and a combination of IP aliasing, IP masquerading and port
forwarding. Proxy arp is the less dirty of the two, it makes your outside
router answer arp requests for the machines in the DMZ and is thereby
addressed by machines in the network between it and your ISP's router. See
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Proxy-ARP-Subnet/index.html for details.
The other possibilty is to add the DMZ server's IP addresses to the the
exterior router's eth0 interface with IP aliasing and to use RFC1918
addresses in the DMZ. Using port forwarding, you can redirect traffic from
the router to the DMZ and masquerade the return traffic.
Both of these alternatives are hacks, more or less, to circumvent the need
for your ISP to do anything or, in fact, notice any change. However, they
are administratively much more complicated. It's your call.
> Outside of the DMZ there are more WWW-Server, only one of these should
> be in the DMZ, because on this host are running some special software.
>
Why shouldn't all of your public servers go into a DMZ? I'd probably advise
you to get an additional 30-bit or 29-bit subnet from your ISP to place the
exterior router and the ISP's router in and use your 26-bit network in one
or more DMZs.
> If i try it like this, i've problems with the routing, the DMZ is pingable
> from
> the "Router outside" but i can't reach the Internet from this Router.
>
Hmm, your routing is probably mucked up.
> Perhaps some people can help me set up the routing correctly and perhaps
> could
> tell (explain) me the mistakes i make!
>
The following should work on the exterior router:
/sbin/route add -net 62.153.xxx.128 netmask 255.255.255.224 dev eth1
/sbin/route add -net 62.153.xxx.128 netmask 255.255.255.192 dev eth0
You need to add both routes to the machines in front of the exterior router
as well as in the DMZ for routing between these networks to function. These
need to specify the exterior router as the gateway to use, of course.
HTH,
Tobias
> in the last weeks i often got the syslog-message
> that somebody wanted to update my bind-server
> for somedomain which was of course denied by
> my bind-system by default.
>
Are you sure an attempt to update your server software and not the database
is being made?
> are there any problems in the software i have
> to think about with regard to a worst case
> scenario...;-)
>
Well, BIND isn't considered to be very reliable with respect to security.
djbdns is, on the other hand, but isn't and probably won't be distributed by
SuSE, due to DJB's, umm.., unusual licensing policy. It's pretty easy to
compile, install and configure, though.
HTH,
Tobias
> For example it would be possible to install 4 nics in my box an then use
> one nic for isp A and one for isp B. Would it be also possible to set up
> firewalling so that isp A provides internet access to network C and B for
> network D.
> Box
> ISP A (eth0) -----> Network C (eth1)
> ISP B (eth2) -----> Network D (eth3)
>
> But it should not be possile to access ISP B from Network C and visa verse
> for ISP A.
>
This is possible with a 2.4 (or late 2.2?) kernel with the advanced routing
options. You need to perform routing based on source address. I expect it to
be pretty easy to muddle up in setup and maintenance, so I'd probably advise
against it and urge you to set up another box to properly separate both
networks. If we're talking about WAN uplinks any old box will be able to
handle the traffic easily.
> I think it should be possible with the SuSEfirewall. You only have to set
> up
> the
> right routing configuration.
>
I barely know SuSEFirewall myself, but generic iptables/ipchains aren't your
problem. The routing is, as you correctly assume.
Cheers,
Tobias
For example it would be possible to install 4 nics in my box an then use
one nic for isp A and one for isp B. Would it be also possible to set up
firewalling so that isp A provides internet access to network C and B for
network D.
Box
ISP A (eth0) -----> Network C (eth1)
ISP B (eth2) -----> Network D (eth3)
But it should not be possile to access ISP B from Network C and visa verse
for ISP A.
I think it should be possible with the SuSEfirewall. You only have to set up
the
right routing configuration.
Any comments?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernhard Pavdi <bernhard.pavdi(a)tride.net>
To: <office(a)tride.net>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:39 AM
Subject: [Fwd: [suse-security] many nic's]
>
>
For evaluation I received a netscreen 5a. I'm a little bit unhappy with it
because it seems not to support pasv ftp. Moreover if it runs only in active
mode I have to open all hi-ports for ftp which is a fact I really hate.
If somebody knows how to set up pasv ftp on netscreen 5a please let me know.
TIA
Philipp