Layer 7 filtering

[Ovidiu Lixandru]

Hello.
I've got a RedHat Linux 9 router which provides net for a LAN via DNAT. 
  On this machine I plan to use layer 7 filtering in order to get rid of 
some unwanted instant messaging and p2p protocols for some of the 
internal IP's. So far, I've found l7-filter which seems to provide what 
I need.
I've rebuilt the iptables-1.2.9-2.3.1 srpm including the l7-filter patch 
and it worked nicely.
The ugly part comes with the kernel (2.4.20-8). I've deployed the srpm 
and modified the spec to include the l7-filter patch. However, when it 
comes to rebuilding the rpm (rpmbuild -bb --clean --target i686 
kernel-2.4.spec), I get:

   Connection state match support (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_STATE) [M/n/?]
   Connection tracking match support (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_CONNTRACK) [M/n/?]
   Unclean match support (EXPERIMENTAL) (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_UNCLEAN) [M/n/?]
   Owner match support (EXPERIMENTAL) (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_OWNER) [M/n/?]
   Layer 7 match support (EXPERIMENTAL) (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7) 
[N/m/?] (NEW)   Buffer size for application layer data (256-65536) 
(CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN) [2048] (NEW)
CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN:

    Size of the buffer that the application layer data is stored in.
    Unless you know what you're doing, leave it at the default of 2048
    Bytes.
   Buffer size for application layer data (256-65536) 
(CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN) [2048] (NEW)
CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN:

...and the message keeps repeating.
At this point, I'm pondering whether to switch to a recent RHEL 2.6 
kernel and try patching that or get some other layer 7 filtering 
software which may work nicely with the RH 2.4.20 kernel (is there any 
other?).
Any ideas and suggestions are welcome.
Thanks.

-- 
Ovidiu Lixandru
linux360

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb Ovidiu Lixandru um 20:09:

>  I've got a RedHat Linux 9 router which provides net for a LAN via
> DNAT. 
Sorry to say, but this is the wrong auditorium for Red Hat Linux 9
issues.

>    On this machine I plan to use layer 7 filtering in order to get rid
> of 
>  some unwanted instant messaging and p2p protocols for some of the 
>  internal IP's. So far, I've found l7-filter which seems to provide what 
>  I need.
>  I've rebuilt the iptables-1.2.9-2.3.1 srpm including the l7-filter patch 
>  and it worked nicely.
>  The ugly part comes with the kernel (2.4.20-8). I've deployed the srpm  
O man, that old kernel is long. long time obsolete and a no-go for a
firewalling router! Have a close look at the Fedora Legacy Project.

>  At this point, I'm pondering whether to switch to a recent RHEL
> 2.6 
>  kernel and try patching that or get some other layer 7 filtering 
>  software which may work nicely with the RH 2.4.20 kernel (is there any 
>  other?). 
Migrate to Fedora - then you are right here (or get RHEL or CentOS and
use their communication routes).

Alexander


-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.11-1.35_FC2smp 
Serendipity 20:12:59 up 4 days, 3:05, load average: 0.10, 0.09, 0.09

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb Alexander Dalloz um 20:16:

>  > The ugly part comes with the kernel (2.4.20-8). I've
> deployed the srpm 
>  
>  O man, that old kernel is long. long time obsolete and a no-go for a
>  firewalling router! Have a close look at the Fedora Legacy Project. 
>  Alexander 
Sorry, rereading my reply I feel I was not clear enough. The RH9 kernel
2.4.20-8 has more serious security issues than you have fingers on one
hand! It is the kernel version RH9 originally shipped with years ago.
Even during the period when Red Hat himself released security update
kernels that beast should have been kicked long time ago.

Alexander


-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.11-1.35_FC2smp 
Serendipity 20:22:18 up 4 days, 3:14, load average: 0.39, 0.36, 0.20

[Ovidiu Lixandru]

Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>  Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb Ovidiu Lixandru um 20:09:
<snip>
>  Sorry to say, but this is the wrong auditorium for Red Hat Linux 9
>  issues. 
I didn't know who else to ask. fedora-legacy-list seems to have another 
purpose than user problems with projects in Legacy.

>  O man, that old kernel is long. long time obsolete and a no-go for a
>  firewalling router! Have a close look at the Fedora Legacy Project. 
I know, however it serves its purpose and it's a nicely tweaked machine. 
I don't really want to go upgrading. Besides, old bits of software have 
their charm. ;)

>  Migrate to Fedora - then you are right here (or get RHEL or CentOS
> and
>  use their communication routes). 
I've backported some of the packages from FC1 and FC2, but the core is 
still Shrike. Is this a "if it works, it's high time for an upgrade" 
trick question? :)

So, does anyone have any pointers for software filtering using 2.4 kernels?

-- 
Ovidiu Lixandru
linux360

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb Ovidiu Lixandru um 20:29:
>  Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>  > Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb Ovidiu Lixandru um 20:09:
>  <snip> 
>  > Sorry to say, but this is the wrong auditorium for Red Hat Linux
> 9
>  > issues.
>  
>  I didn't know who else to ask. fedora-legacy-list seems to have another 
>  purpose than user problems with projects in Legacy. 
Correct. But with RH9 you fall into the gap.

>  > O man, that old kernel is long. long time obsolete and a no-go
> for a
>  > firewalling router! Have a close look at the Fedora Legacy Project.
>  
>  I know, however it serves its purpose and it's a nicely tweaked machine. 
>  I don't really want to go upgrading. Besides, old bits of software have 
>  their charm. ;) 
I really hope all the other software is not that badly maintained like
the kernel (I don't mean that aggressive - just as a serious warning).

>  > Migrate to Fedora - then you are right here (or get RHEL or
> CentOS and
>  > use their communication routes).
>  
>  I've backported some of the packages from FC1 and FC2, but the core is 
>  still Shrike. Is this a "if it works, it's high time for an upgrade" 
>  trick question? :) 
It is said with respect to my first sentence in this mail; please see
above. You are mostly on your own speaking about end user problems with
RH9.

>  So, does anyone have any pointers for software filtering using 2.4
> kernels? 
Alexander


-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.11-1.35_FC2smp 
Serendipity 20:43:44 up 4 days, 3:35, load average: 0.11, 0.12, 0.14

[Steffen Kluge]

On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 21:29 +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
>  I know, however it serves its purpose and it's a nicely tweaked
> machine. 
>  I don't really want to go upgrading. Besides, old bits of software have 
>  their charm. ;) 
If you don't want to upgrade you need to update at least! There's been a
plethora of security fixes to the original RH9 distro.

Get yum for RH9 (see below) and update your system! If you want I'll
send you a yum.conf that works well for RH9.

Cheers
Steffen.

[yum for RH9:
http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/9/legacy-utils/i386/yum-2.0.5-0.9...]

[Paul Howarth]

On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 17:22 +1000, Steffen Kluge wrote:
>  On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 21:29 +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
>  > I know, however it serves its purpose and it's a nicely tweaked machine. 
>  > I don't really want to go upgrading. Besides, old bits of software have 
>  > their charm. ;)
>  
>  If you don't want to upgrade you need to update at least! There's been a
>  plethora of security fixes to the original RH9 distro.
>  
>  Get yum for RH9 (see below) and update your system! If you want I'll
>  send you a yum.conf that works well for RH9.
>  
>  Cheers
>  Steffen.
>  
>  [yum for RH9:
>
> http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/9/legacy-utils/i386/yum-2.0.5-0.9...]
For more details see also:
http://www.fedoralegacy.org/docs/yum-rh9.php

Paul.
-- 
Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org&gt;

[Captain Bubudiu]

 --- Ovidiu Lixandru <ovidiu(a)linux360.ro&gt; wrote: 
>  Hello.
>  I've got a RedHat Linux 9 router which provides net
>  for a LAN via DNAT. 
>    On this machine I plan to use layer 7 filtering in
>  order to get rid of 
>  some unwanted instant messaging and p2p protocols
>  for some of the 
>  internal IP's. So far, I've found l7-filter which
>  seems to provide what 
>  I need.
>  I've rebuilt the iptables-1.2.9-2.3.1 srpm including
>  the l7-filter patch 
>  and it worked nicely.
>  The ugly part comes with the kernel (2.4.20-8). I've
>  deployed the srpm 
>  and modified the spec to include the l7-filter
>  patch. However, when it 
>  comes to rebuilding the rpm (rpmbuild -bb --clean
>  --target i686 
>  kernel-2.4.spec), I get:
>  
>     Connection state match support
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_STATE) [M/n/?]
>     Connection tracking match support
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_CONNTRACK) [M/n/?]
>     Unclean match support (EXPERIMENTAL)
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_UNCLEAN) [M/n/?]
>     Owner match support (EXPERIMENTAL)
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_OWNER) [M/n/?]
>     Layer 7 match support (EXPERIMENTAL)
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7) 
>  [N/m/?] (NEW)   Buffer size for application layer
>  data (256-65536) 
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN) [2048] (NEW)
>  CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN:
>  
>      Size of the buffer that the application layer
>  data is stored in.
>      Unless you know what you're doing, leave it at
>  the default of 2048
>      Bytes.
>     Buffer size for application layer data
>  (256-65536) 
>  (CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN) [2048] (NEW)
>  CONFIG_IP_NF_MATCH_LAYER7_MAXDATALEN:
>  
>  ...and the message keeps repeating.
>  At this point, I'm pondering whether to switch to a
>  recent RHEL 2.6 
>  kernel and try patching that or get some other layer
>  7 filtering 
>  software which may work nicely with the RH 2.4.20
>  kernel (is there any 
>  other?).
>  Any ideas and suggestions are welcome.
>  Thanks.
>  
>  --  
Have you considered asking the dudes in the
fedora-legacy-list? (Given that RH9 is now in legacy)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fedora Core - The power of Open Source Now! Please search the archives and fedoraforum.org
as the question is likely to have been asked before.

Catch me at http://members.lycos.co.uk/bubudiu/

Cheers
Captain Bubudiu


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Ovidiu Lixandru]

Captain Bubudiu wrote:

>  Have you considered asking the dudes in the
>  fedora-legacy-list? (Given that RH9 is now in legacy) 
Yes, as I said in another reply, fedora-legacy-list seems to have 
another purpose than user problems with projects in Legacy.

"fedora-list - For users of Fedora Core releases. If you want help with 
a problem installing or using Fedora Core, this is the list for you."

keyword: users

"fedora-legacy-list - For discussions about the Fedora Legacy Project"

keywords: "discussions about the [...] Project"

I admit, I haven't checked the archives to get an idea about the issues 
discussed over there.

-- 
Ovidiu Lixandru
linux360

[Captain Bubudiu]

 --- Ovidiu Lixandru <ovidiu(a)linux360.ro&gt; wrote: 
>  Captain Bubudiu wrote:
>  
>  > Have you considered asking the dudes in the
>  > fedora-legacy-list? (Given that RH9 is now in
>  legacy)
>  
>  Yes, as I said in another reply, fedora-legacy-list
>  seems to have 
>  another purpose than user problems with projects in
>  Legacy.
>  
>  "fedora-list - For users of Fedora Core releases. If
>  you want help with 
>  a problem installing or using Fedora Core, this is
>  the list for you."
>  
>  keyword: users
>  
>  "fedora-legacy-list - For discussions about the
>  Fedora Legacy Project"
>  
>  keywords: "discussions about the [...] Project"
>  
>  I admit, I haven't checked the archives to get an
>  idea about the issues 
>  discussed over there.
>  
>  -- 
>  Ovidiu Lixandru
>  linux360 
The fedora list is for discussion of Fedora Core 3 and
4 (Current supported releases). The Fedora Legacy list
is for the discussion of RH7.3, RH9, FC1 and FC2.

In fact as a matter of urgency :- go to 

- http://www.fedoralegacy.org/docs/yum-rh9.php where
you can get the updates at
http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/9/

- If you are using the stock packages from RH9 you are
vulnerable unless you use the fedoralegacy.org
patches.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fedora Core - The power of Open Source Now! Please search the archives and fedoraforum.org
as the question is likely to have been asked before.

Catch me at http://members.lycos.co.uk/bubudiu/

Cheers
Captain Bubudiu


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 29.06.2005 schrieb Captain Bubudiu um 20:46:

>  The fedora list is for discussion of Fedora Core 3 and
>  4 (Current supported releases). The Fedora Legacy list
>  is for the discussion of RH7.3, RH9, FC1 and FC2. 
No, the Fedora Legacy list <fedora-legacy-list(a)redhat.com&gt; isn't for end
user problem discussions. It is for coordinating and communicating about
the FLP itself. Problems with FLP updates are answered there, but
anything regarding use of EOL (legacy) Red Hat and Fedora releases or
questions about customizing these distribution releases are misplaced
there.

>  Captain Bubudiu 
Alexander


-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.11-1.35_FC2smp 
Serendipity 22:25:59 up 4 days, 5:18, load average: 0.56, 0.46, 0.46