redhat-config-securitylevel vs redhat-config-firewall?
Jack Bowling
jbinpg at shaw.ca
Tue Oct 7 22:44:21 UTC 2003
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 05:45:04PM -0400, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> Tommy McNeely wrote:
>
> >
> >Also, why is it called redhat-config-securitylevel, when all it really
> >configures is the firewall.. wouldn't it make more sense to be called
> >redhat-config-firewall? isn't that what it used to be called? what other
> >security level stuff does it configure? :)
> >
>
> I think the idea is that it only configures very basic options about the
> iptables firewall. It's only setting up generic firewall levels, rather
> than being a full-fledged firewall configurator. If you want more
> complex things, you have to update the rules manually, or with another
> application.
RH has been taken to task on this list previously for this apparent
episode of hubris. A firewall is only one aspect of system security and
thus I agree that r-c-firewall makes more sense.
--
Jack Bowling
mailto: jbinpg at shaw.ca
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list