Disabling firewalld on AWS?
skottler at redhat.com
Wed Sep 11 03:52:06 UTC 2013
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Hampton" <error at ioerror.us>
> To: cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:45:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Disabling firewalld on AWS?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 09/10/2013 11:36 PM, Sam Kottler wrote:
> > Given the deny-by-default nature of security groups I think it makes sense
> > to disable firewalld in the AMI's. I haven't seen any other AMI's that
> > have a firewall enabled by default and we probably shouldn't break that
> > pattern IMO.
> > Thoughts?
> This is easily one of my least-favorite "features" of certain Linux
> 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 prerogative, but it's confusing and non-standard to have a firewall running on the instance and one running via the security group(s) that the host is in.
> -----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
> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
More information about the cloud