----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Kottler" <skottler(a)redhat.com>
To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" <cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:53:59 AM
Subject: Re: Disabling firewalld on AWS?
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Hampton" <error(a)ioerror.us>
> To: cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:47:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Disabling firewalld on AWS?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 09/11/2013 08:13 AM, Sam Kottler wrote:
> > On 09/10/2013 11:36 PM, Sam Kottler wrote:
> >>>>>> Given the deny-by-default nature of security groups I
> >>>>>> it makes sense to disable firewalld in the AMI's. I
> >>>>>> seen any other AMI's that have a firewall enabled by
> >>>>>> and we probably shouldn't break that pattern IMO.
> >>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>> This is easily one of my least-favorite "features" of
> >>> Linux distributions.
> >>> Debian/Ubuntu images don't have a firewall enabled by default in
> >>> their cloud images because they don't have a firewall enabled at
> >>> all in a default installation. At least the last time I looked at
> >>> them; maybe they've gotten smarter in the last couple of years.
> >>> I'm not really sure I see a benefit here. There may not even be a
> >>> second firewall in front of the virtual machine; a user might turn
> >>> it off because it's getting in the way, or a cloud provider might
> >>> not provide this feature at all. I know of at least one public
> >>> cloud provider which has an external firewall feature similar to
> >>> AWS security groups, but it's off by default. In this case I see
> >>> plenty of downside.
> >>>> If people disable their firewall then that's their
> >>>> but it's confusing and non-standard to have a firewall running
> >>>> the instance and one running via the security group(s) that the
> >>>> host is in.
> >> Also, I don't trust the public cloud providers to configure their
> >> firewall correctly.
> > So in your case you just `chkconfig firewalld on` and configure it. I'm
> > sure that people who share your opinion (myself among them) will do that
> > for the extra layer of security, but I'm just advocating for the Fedora
> > images to follow the way other AMI's are handling firewalls.
> And I'm saying that the way other AMIs do it is wrong. We should not also
> wrong merely because everyone else is jumping off the cliff. Rather we
> should continue to be secure by default and require explicit action from
> user to disable security, not explicit action to enable security.
It's not "disabl[ing] security", security groups already do that for you.
Sorry, this was a weird sentence. My point is that having rules in place on the instance
isn't enabling security, but rather adding another layer of it.
You're adding an extra convoluted layer, and the vast majority of
just disable it and rely on security groups (that's conjecture on my part).
Have you ever heard about vulnerabilities in the AWS security group
implementation? I haven't.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> cloud mailing list
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct