how to enable iptables from CLI

In comp.os.linux.security linuxadmin <me.linuxadmin@gmail.com>:
> Hi everyone,
> Ive got RHEL4 on my linuxbox. During its installation I had disabled
> iptables..so now when I want to enable it again I will have to go to
> the GUI option of Security and from there will have to enable it.
> I wanted to know is there a way to enable iptables from the command
> line rather than using the GUI

Enter 'lokkit' as root from shell.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 298: Not enough interrupts

Michael Heiming wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.security linuxadmin <me.linuxadmin@gmail.com>:
> > Hi everyone,
> > Ive got RHEL4 on my linuxbox. During its installation I had disabled
> > iptables..so now when I want to enable it again I will have to go to
> > the GUI option of Security and from there will have to enable it.
> > I wanted to know is there a way to enable iptables from the command
> > line rather than using the GUI
>
> Enter 'lokkit' as root from shell.
>
> --
> Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
> mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
> #bofh excuse 298: Not enough interrupts

Thanks
Danish

In article <Tu6dnZxxVOZwHqrZRVn-gg@gwi.net>,
Newsbox <nospam_for_me_please@thanks.invalid> wrote:

>For security purposes, trust no one (other than one's
>self), at least until you know what every single bit of this stuff is
>about.

Which means not trusting the poster of this message.

Face it, _all_ security is based on trust. Without trust, there can be
no security.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:45:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In article <Tu6dnZxxVOZwHqrZRVn-gg@gwi.net>,
> Newsbox <nospam_for_me_please@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>
>>For security purposes, trust no one (other than one's
>>self), at least until you know what every single bit of this stuff is
>>about.
>
> Which means not trusting the poster of this message.
>
> Face it, _all_ security is based on trust. Without trust, there can be
> no security.

Right. But it's important who and what is trusted, and it can be a fine
line practically and semantically. Perhaps it is better said to trust,
but verify (which is fairly close to "do not trust").