Attachment 15526 Details for Bug 28767 – file.diff

[patch] file.diff

file.diff (text/plain), 2.69 KB, created by Giorgos Keramidas on 2001-07-06 11:30:02 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Giorgos Keramidas

Created: 2001-07-06 11:30:02 UTC

Size: 2.69 KB

patch

obsolete

>Index: en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/dialup-firewall/article.sgml
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/dialup-firewall/article.sgml,v
>retrieving revision 1.8
>diff -u -r1.8 article.sgml
>--- en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/dialup-firewall/article.sgml	2001/06/24 21:01:53	1.8
>+++ en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/dialup-firewall/article.sgml	2001/07/06 09:57:22
>@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@
>     
>     <para>We're nearly done now. All that remains now is to define the
>       firewall rules and then we can reboot and the firewall should be up and
>-      running. I realise that everyone will want something slightly different
>+      running. I realize that everyone will want something slightly different
>       when it comes to their rulebase. What I've tried to do is write a
>       rulebase that suits most dialup users. You can obviously modify it to
>       your needs by  simply using the following rules as the foundation for
>@@ -187,9 +187,10 @@
>       rules for your allows, and  then everything else is denied. :)</para>
> 
>     <para>Now, let's make the dir /etc/firewall. Change into the directory and
>-      edit the file fwrules as we specified in rc.conf. Please note that you
>-      can change this filename to be anything you wish. This guide just gives
>-      an  example of a filename. </para>
>+      edit the file <filename>fwrules</filename> as we specified in
>+      <filename>rc.conf</filename>. Please note that you can change this
>+      filename to be anything you wish. This guide just gives an example of a
>+      filename. </para>
> 
>     <para>Now, let's look at a sample firewall file, and we'll detail
>       everything in it. </para>
>@@ -263,8 +264,8 @@
> 	
> 	<answer>
> 	  <para>I'll have to be honest and say there's no definitive reason
>-	    why I use ipfw and natd instead of the built in ppp  filters. From
>-	    the discussions I've had with people the consensus  seems to be
>+	    why I use ipfw and natd instead of the built in ppp filters.  From
>+	    the discussions I've had with people the consensus seems to be
> 	    that while ipfw is certainly more powerful and more configurable
> 	    than the ppp filters, what it makes up for in functionality it
> 	    loses in being easy to customise.  One of the reasons I use it is
>@@ -276,7 +277,7 @@
>       <qandaentry>
> 	<question>
> 	  <para>If I'm using private addresses internally, such as in the
>-	    192.168.0.0 range, Could I add a command like <literal>$fwcmd add
>+	    192.168.0.0 range, could I add a command like <literal>$fwcmd add
> 	      deny all from any to 192.168.0.0:255.255.0.0 via tun0</literal>
> 	    to the firewall rules to prevent outside attempts to connect to
> 	    internal machines?</para>

Actions: View | Diff

Attachments on bug 28767: 15526