Re: The way forward

From: Marc Spitzer (mspitze1@optonline.net)
Date: 02/05/03 

Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:05:32 -0500
From: Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@optonline.net>
To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG

On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 10:26:01 -0800
Nicholas Esborn <nick@netdot.net> wrote:

> Here here on pf envy. It's not well tested yet, but pf's architecture
> and capabilities look better than both ipf and ipfw.
>
> -nick
>

Could you share some details on that?

marc

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message

Relevant Pages

  • IPFs future?
    ... If IPF implementations continue to target primarily the premium ... ISTM that by A.D. 2016 IPF will have implemented an asynchronous ... Register Save Engine. ... the architecture might be enhanced with something like MIPS' new ...
    (comp.arch)
  • RE: FreeBSD - Secure by DEFAULT ?? [hosts.allow]
    ... But why IPFW? ... IPF is *BSD native wall. ... > hosts.allow file on a FreeBSD Production Server? ... but with no Firewall yet. ...
    (FreeBSD-Security)
  • Re: dummynet module?
    ... because ipfw sorts by the explicit rule numbers you supplied, ... function to IPF if you're still concerned about your ipfw rules ... login over the net, or that the system hangs and you can't login from ... check the logs from the console to see what's denying the packets. ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: FreeBSD - Secure by DEFAULT ?? [hosts.allow]
    ... They both exist as part of the base FreeBSD ... both ipf and ipfw are "native" to FreeBSD. ... > native firewall, ...
    (FreeBSD-Security)
  • Re: Firewall confusions
    ... > While reading man pages, handbook, web articles and pdfs, I came across ... > IPF, IPFW and PF. ... The best bit of reading you can have for PF is this site:- ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)