<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="https://dev1galaxy.org/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=3347&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Dev1 Galaxy Forum / Iptables standartd issue]]></title>
		<link>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?id=3347</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in Iptables standartd issue.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 23:03:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Iptables standartd issue]]></title>
			<link>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20369#p20369</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>ralph.ronnquist wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>Are you saying that <span class="bbc">iptables</span> decrements the given option code by 1?</p><p>Or is it that you find it confusing that the <span class="bbc">--tcp-option</span> parameter rejects code 0?</p><p>Rejecting option code 0 is of course consistent with the code table, since code 0 is an &quot;end of options list&quot; marker, and not an option code in itself.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>1. What I wanted to say, I have already said here. <br />2. There are standards that are accepted as a standard and these standards should be followed, and not &quot;break&quot; user dependencies.<br />3. I&#039;m not a girl to be embarrassed about.<br />4. The range of TCP options should be between 0 and 254, not as it is now from 1 to 255.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Eaglet)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 23:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20369#p20369</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Iptables standartd issue]]></title>
			<link>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20307#p20307</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Are you saying that <span class="bbc">iptables</span> decrements the given option code by 1?</p><p>Or is it that you find it confusing that the <span class="bbc">--tcp-option</span> parameter rejects code 0?</p><p>Rejecting option code 0 is of course consistent with the code table, since code 0 is an &quot;end of options list&quot; marker, and not an option code in itself.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (ralph.ronnquist)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2020 22:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20307#p20307</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Iptables standartd issue]]></title>
			<link>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20300#p20300</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>fsmithred wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>Do you know when and where this change took place? Was it in debian or upstream?</p><p>Where is &#039;--tcp-option&#039; from? It is not mentioned in man iptables.</p></div></blockquote></div><p><strong>Salute, comrade!</strong></p><p>About --tcp-option please see this information from netfilter developers: <a href="https://www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO/packet-filtering-HOWTO-7.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.netfilter.org/documentation … WTO-7.html</a> or see man page iptables: <a href="https://linux.die.net/man/8/iptables" rel="nofollow">https://linux.die.net/man/8/iptables</a></p><p>I don&#039;t know exactly where the change occurred, but it happened about 2 years ago. About 2 years ago, after the next update in <em>iptables</em> (this can be tracked by the history of updating fixes and updates for <em>iptables</em> in Debian b) in Debian 9, I started to show an error in the logs about the absence of <em>--tcp-option 0</em>. As it turned out in the future, this error was present in both Ubuntu and Devuan. I suspect that the developers of netfilter made this error, because it has become present in all derivatives based on Ubuntu and Debian.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Eaglet)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2020 14:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20300#p20300</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: Iptables standartd issue]]></title>
			<link>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20299#p20299</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Do you know when and where this change took place? Was it in debian or upstream?</p><p>Where is &#039;--tcp-option&#039; from? It is not mentioned in man iptables.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (fsmithred)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2020 13:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20299#p20299</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Iptables standartd issue]]></title>
			<link>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20279#p20279</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hello, friends!</p><p>In Devuan 1, Devuan 2, Devuan 3 (and Debian, and Ubuntu) have next standard issue with <strong>iptables</strong>!</p><p>The current range of values for the <strong>--tcp-option</strong> <em>iptables</em> flag is 1-255 - this is not correct. The correct range of values should be 0-254. Please read the following information: <a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml#tcp-parameters-1" rel="nofollow">https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-pa … rameters-1</a> This negative change in <em>iptables</em> was made approximately 2 years ago without making this change public. Please report this issue to the <em>iptables</em> developers so that they can set the range of --tcp-option values in accordance with the accepted standards for the TCP Protocol.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (Eaglet)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Feb 2020 21:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://dev1galaxy.org/viewtopic.php?pid=20279#p20279</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
