 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / October 2005Advise on good firewall for Mac OS X 10.3.9
I understand that Firewall X 2 is no longer maintained. Would anybody then please recommend, possibly having used it, a good firewall, easy to configure (the one included in OS X is out, therefore) or already with a std set of rules, to be used in a network behind an AirPort Extreme base station, connected to the Internet via a cable modem, not requiring OS X 10.4? I already use Little Snitch, but Little Snitch cannot replace a full fledged firewall, as it implements, very well, only a subset of the usual firewall functions. Thanks a lot! ThufirHawat -- > I understand that Firewall X 2 is no longer maintained. > Would anybody then please recommend, possibly having used it, a good [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -- What do you wish to do that makes the OS X firewall difficult to configure?  SignatureLater, John johajohn@indianahoosiers.edu 'indiana' is a 'nolnn' and 'hoosier' is a 'solkk'. Indiana doesn't solkk. > > I understand that Firewall X 2 is no longer maintained. > > Would anybody then please recommend, possibly having used it, a good [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What do you wish to do that makes the OS X firewall difficult to > configure? Not much, but I have a totally idiot ISP who changes continuously his DNS, as they get regularly hacked by some script kiddie, and I also wish to be alerted by port scans and UDP probings. From what I have read you cannot do all this with the OS X firewall (alert capability zero) while using NAT, as I do. >> What do you wish to do that makes the OS X firewall difficult to >> configure? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > read you cannot do all this with the OS X firewall (alert capability > zero) while using NAT, as I do. If you're using NAT, your Mac should not see port scans or UDP probes from the world. Only from within your NATed network. This means you will not use the capabilities that you're seeking in a FW. AC SignatureAawara Chowdhury, Shelter 5329, Champaign, IL. > >> What do you wish to do that makes the OS X firewall difficult to > >> configure? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from the world. Only from within your NATed network. This means you > will not use the capabilities that you're seeking in a FW. What you say is logical, but then how come I have in my Firewalk log entries like this: 21/10/2005 18:22:43 denied(stealth) TCP 140.211.166.198:80 to 10.0.1.2:56862 via en1 [this looks like an idiot trying to hit a port on my NAT'ified AlBook, in spite of the NAT done by my Airport Extreme Base Station] or this: 23/10/2005 18:09:27 denied(stealth) UDP 10.0.1.2:58079 to 239.255.255.253:427 via en1 [this seems me sending a UDP message to an address, perhaps broadcast?] > What you say is logical, but then how come I have in my Firewalk log > entries like this: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on my NAT'ified AlBook, in spite of the NAT done by my Airport Extreme > Base Station] This is part of an http conversation between your AiBook and one of the www.mozilla.org mirrors. > 23/10/2005 18:09:27 denied(stealth) UDP 10.0.1.2:58079 to > 239.255.255.253:427 via en1 [this seems me sending a UDP message to an > address, perhaps broadcast?] Yes, it's a broadcast address. OSX sends out these service discovery broadcasts regularly. These logs are alarming you over nothing. >> 21/10/2005 18:22:43 denied(stealth) TCP 140.211.166.198:80 to >> 10.0.1.2:56862 via en1 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, it's a broadcast address. OSX sends out these service discovery > broadcasts regularly. Slight correction: this is multicast, not broadcast. It's osx looking for file servers (samba, nfs, ftp, apple afp). In both cases, perfectly normal ip traffic. > >> 21/10/2005 18:22:43 denied(stealth) TCP 140.211.166.198:80 to > >> 10.0.1.2:56862 via en1 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > In both cases, perfectly normal ip traffic. Thank you very much for decrypting these mysterious entries. I probably should then authorise these conversations by creating new rules, were it only to reduce my firewall log to the real ones. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.