06-20-2024, 10:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2024, 10:48 PM by grindstone.)
Yeah looks like you got another one. Keep 'em coming, but my guess is that it's not UNintentional and the precise answer would be John's to provide.
For now, yeah--blow all the dupes out, leave the "sane" bit at the top. Either that or add the block-advert shell stuff, it's up to you. Just the one script from antiX--doesn't really need to even be patched-in to the control center to work--I just tested it all as sudo from the command line and it did the population-bit. As I'm still new here, too, I hadn't gotten that far to decode the antiX filter rules and figure out why that filtering works right (vs. say hosts.deny).
Each of the antiX "levels" (core base full) has a different control center (and accompanying amount of "niceties"). DSL started with base and reduced, of necessity, as we all know, to fit on a CD. I've only installed core and full so I don't know what base has for a CC.
I can't speak for John/DSL, but can only speculate it was one of the choices for reduction. It's actually not that big of a script but it may have overhead I've not learned about yet. It could be worth discussion for inclusion...er not.
If you've dug into how the filtering happens, please let us know. A quick search for all the ufw rules files from the default shows it's quite modular and will take more time than I have right now.
I just used ufw default deny and ufw enable and called it good because I didn't know what ports were open and hadn't probed things yet.
I think the extra layer of hosts.deny / hosts.allow is application-based so the filtering is best done earlier (iptables) IMO, but probably doesn't hurt in both places (layers, etc).
Personally, I have an Adblock plus extension in Firefox, but the antiX way sounds leaner--I just haven't dug that far.
Thanks again--to you and to everyone who is helping. John is a 1-man show and all the help matters.
For now, yeah--blow all the dupes out, leave the "sane" bit at the top. Either that or add the block-advert shell stuff, it's up to you. Just the one script from antiX--doesn't really need to even be patched-in to the control center to work--I just tested it all as sudo from the command line and it did the population-bit. As I'm still new here, too, I hadn't gotten that far to decode the antiX filter rules and figure out why that filtering works right (vs. say hosts.deny).
Each of the antiX "levels" (core base full) has a different control center (and accompanying amount of "niceties"). DSL started with base and reduced, of necessity, as we all know, to fit on a CD. I've only installed core and full so I don't know what base has for a CC.
I can't speak for John/DSL, but can only speculate it was one of the choices for reduction. It's actually not that big of a script but it may have overhead I've not learned about yet. It could be worth discussion for inclusion...er not.
If you've dug into how the filtering happens, please let us know. A quick search for all the ufw rules files from the default shows it's quite modular and will take more time than I have right now.
I just used ufw default deny and ufw enable and called it good because I didn't know what ports were open and hadn't probed things yet.
I think the extra layer of hosts.deny / hosts.allow is application-based so the filtering is best done earlier (iptables) IMO, but probably doesn't hurt in both places (layers, etc).
Personally, I have an Adblock plus extension in Firefox, but the antiX way sounds leaner--I just haven't dug that far.
Thanks again--to you and to everyone who is helping. John is a 1-man show and all the help matters.