[CentOS] Putting nat routing into place permanently? -- service iptables save

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Nov 3 19:02:29 UTC 2005

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 07:32, Peter Farrow wrote:
> Rc.local is used explicitly for the running of scripts after the system 
> has booted.

It is used as a catchall for things that don't have more
explicit scripts using the runlevel mechanism.

> Putting your own firewall scripts in here is a good place to put them 
> rather than relying on "service iptables save", this is because the 
> visibility of changes is poor when using the "service iptables save" 
> some one either inadvertantly or otherwise may modify the iptables and 
> re-issue a "service iptables save" and have it reloaded at boot quite 
> transparently.

I don't follow how using the standard mechanism makes something
less visible, or why anyone would think to look in rc.local
instead of the usual place.

> Having it visible in rc.local makes it easily viewable to see if its 
> been changed.

Compared to??

> I would not trust any system hosted on the net with the rather open 
> ended "service iptables save".  The only benefit that this offers is 
> that it brings the filewall up early on in the boot process, meaning at 
> boot time the machine is protected sooner.

That's a reasonable point, but if you want to address it you might
suggest a different init  script linked to the right places in the
runlevel directories.  Someone might find it there...

> To say that putting in rc.local is "not right" is really a bit misguided...

It's not the right place for things that need to be adjusted on
runlevel changes, although it can be used as a quick fix for
not having a proper init script.

  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the CentOS mailing list