Firewall, Firestarter, help, installation

English Install/Boot/Login
#1

**How does one install firestarter firewall in place of the Yast firewall installation? **

I Would rather have firestarter installed on my suse 10.3 installation as opposed to Yast firewall because firestarter offers greater security. Yast firewall leaves port 113, common port, closed. This means that Yast, at least while in the default mode, will give away the location of a computer upon which it is installed, assuming any would be hacker were to initiate a port scan. G0d only knows how many other ports “Yast firewall” gives away. However, I may yet compile and subsequently submit a list.

Any suggestions would be appreciated?
>
Thus far, Suse makes my no#2 in most difficult (difficult in my limited experience, four Linux Distros to be exact) system in which one might endeavor to run with all ports stealthed.

Someone else must think like me. Click Here

#2

> system in which one might
> endeavor to run with all ports stealthed.

i have NO idea what you and i did different…but, after my 10.3
default install of KDE3, including the SuSE firewall…and before i
did anything to my system, the FIRST thing i did was go to
https://www.grc.com/ which reported all of the first 1056 ports fully
stealthed…it did, however report that i was answering ping…and if
you search for it here i think you will find (in one of these fora,
probably networking) me asking for help to turn off the ping…which i
later learned was NOT SuSE answering, but rather my router/firewall
appliance

i just ran the DEFAULT firewall again, and grc.com reported “Your system
has achieved a perfect “TruStealth” rating. Not a single packet —
solicited or otherwise — was received from your system as a result of
our security probing tests. Your system ignored and refused to reply to
repeated Pings (ICMP Echo Requests). From the standpoint of the passing
probes of any hacker, this machine does not exist on the Internet. Some
questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting
to “counter-probe the prober”, thus revealing themselves. But your
system wisely remained silent in every way. Very nice.”

now, i do not know (i’m not a real hacker, as you appear to be) maybe it
is my router/firewall doing all the really good stuff…i do not know…

i do know this: a gray haired old man who was hacking IBM’s Big Iron in
the '60s told me to go out and buy a router/firewall BEFORE i hooked my
machine to the net, AND run a firewall in my linux desktop box…

i followed his advice, and recommend it to you also…keep’em OUT of
your internal network with a purpose built appliance AND then out of
your box with an internal firewall…

but, to answer your question: if i wanted to install firestarter
firewall my first step would be google which would point me to
http://www.fs-security.com/docs/installation.php

–
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315)
A Texan in Denmark

#3

take a look at Home of Gibson Research Corporation ](http://www.grc.com).
Then click on shields up. Then page down - look for “ShieldsUP!” and click on it; read the stuff on that page and click on “proceede” This gets you to the page where the links are to check the security of your ports and file sharing - and more.

The text talks about windows but the checks that are run will work on a linux box. and should ease your fears about the vulnerability of the open ports your concerned about.

Many of the ports need to be open for various services - what you need to be concerned about is how secure are the applications servicing those ports.

I am certainly no expert, but the above is my understanding from some of the things I have read

#4

**[Looking at the replies #2 & 3, someone in the know has to wonder the following: Are you both in some way legally or perhaps vested monetarily and or personally in Suse? If so, it is no wonder that you would choose to post in a manner that is could be construed to tell the averaage person that Opensuse has no unnecessary security vulnerabilities. [/b]
>
What are theses unnecessary vulnerabilities, one might ask?
>

Rebuttal
All major Distros from windows over the last 10 yearsand all major (keywords being major) Linux Distros over at least the last three years have had the ability to check for both version, hardware and software update under the condition that all (keyword being ALL) ports are in stealth mode. This means that there is no freaking earthly reason for a port (here port 113)to be other than stealthed. If in doubt check out secunia.com sometime.

Windows, the idiots, most recently (most recently being the last few years) chose to leave a certain port, 14xx open, and we all know the nightmare and public headlines which ensued, or worse the current reader of this is oblivious, good grief!?! Is opensuse to be next. Oh, by the way, I can provide credentialed references, so be foolhardy and challenge me if thy dare! :slight_smile:

Rebuttal:
GRC has been around for years and in point of fact, they do have a solid reputation with the better business bureau. However, while I do use them in an auxiliary capacity, they are not the “know all” or “end all” with respect to Internet security.

rebuttal
Sir, please, in the future, please choose more credentialed from which to glean thy information.
>
I thank you for your time**

#5

So what exactly was your first post about? To me it read like you were concerned that all the open ports were a security risk to you system. I gave you a pointer to the grc web site which has scans that will tell you whether or not your computer is at risk.

I consider your accusations concerning links to suse to be libelous and derogatory.

By the way, I managed to install firestarter in open suse 11.0 without a bit of trouble.**

#6

> *Looking at the replies #2 & 3, someone in the know has to wonder the
> following: Are you both in some way legally or perhaps vested
> monetarily and or personally in Suse? If so, it is no wonder that you
> would choose to post in a manner that is could be construed to tell the
> averaage person that Opensuse has no unnecessary security
> vulnerabilities. *

that is twice you have slapped me in the face…

so, i encourage you to help yourself as i have better things to do with
my time than spar with your…

as the other poster said: installing firestarter is NO PROBLEM, so what
is yours?

good day and good luck…

–
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315)
A Texan in Denmark

#7

Since your router is between Suse & GRC, it seems that your router might be obscuring the fact that a default install of Suse will result in a system whose port 113 is detected as closed by a port scan. Also, your router might be obscuring the fact that a default install of Suse will result in a system which responds to ping request. After all, the internet is replete with people who’ve had trouble stealthing port 113 issues in Suse. Click herefor proof

#8

I somehow doubt that you’ve installed firestarter on Suse, all things considered, but a big “good luck & good day” to you too, pal. I’ve no wish to trifle with…

The first time you posted, the almost dual meaning, ambiguous post of yours warranted questioning, and so I did. I would encourage all to read it. I’ve nothing hide. what of you? That is not slapping a person in the face. It’s called being a concerned human being. Since you defended a security breech, click here, here, here & here, the question was justifiable. Seeing the question as a second face slap to your face could cause others to wonder if you have guilty conscious.

#9

I failed to identify the fact that I was looking to install Firestarter in Suse without having to use the useless RPM. This was my mistake. I did not want to get into the weeds of compiling a tarbar in Suse, which is still alien to me when I compare it to Debian Distros.

I was informing people of the fact that Suse 10.3 if not installed on a system behind a proxy or router, then “Suse 10.3” would leave port 113 closed and it would also respond to ping request. These are security holes.

After reading everything posted by you heretofore, I somehow doubt you.

Really? Libelous you say & derogatory? Uhm!.. See: click hereto see the google pages which deal with Suse port 113 security issues. These post start in 2002! Hello! You defended a security hole in suse 10.3! Therefore, it is perfectly rationale for me to ask if you were in some way vested either monetarily or personally in Suse, and the question remains. If there is not a security hole in “Suse 10. 3,” then why is port 113 stealthed in Suse 11.0? They screwed, so they fixed in Suse 11 although the default Suse 11.0 if not installed on a system behind a proxy or router, still responds to ping request.

Oh by the way click herefor the Microsoft bulletin that basically tells the world Microsoft with all it’s knowledge, made the stupid decision to leave ports 1433 & 1434 open/closed. Remember the slammer worm? A worm which could have been worst had it’s designer desired it to be destructive.

You claim to use GRC but you obviously have not read it thoroughly, for if you did read it thoroughly, you would’ve have, hopefully, not made the recommendations you made. GRC Port 113, GRC Port 1434

You consider me to be derogatory?
That is, of course, your prerogative

If you had not defended Suse’s security issue, I would not have had to ask if you were in some way vested either monetarily or personally in Suse, and the question remains. Some might say that only the guilty would see a question as an accusation. The best way to debate is with facts, references and a working knowldge of a dictionary, not raw passion.
Please have great Sunday sir