Re: [Full-Disclosure] OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)
From: Filipe A. (incognito_at_patria.ath.cx)
Date: 01/29/04
- Previous message: Tal Kelrich: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Mydoom"
- In reply to: Jeremiah Cornelius: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)"
- Next in thread: Scott Francis: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Full-Disclosure <full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:44:23 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeremiah Cornelius wrote:
|>>What could you get from pf that you couldn't get from iptables (I've
|>>not played with the little devil yet)?
|
| Human-readable syntax.
|
| Lucid syntax is an indispensable security measure. Errors should be
GLARING
| and obvious!
~ Apart from such subjective feature could you point us to any real
reference/test regarding PF vs netfilter? I've used both. I don't have a
problem with iptables syntax which I find more "objective" than PF's.
But I'd like to read an unbiased comparative article on performance and
detailed features that would clearly state the advantages of either one.
best regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFAGUZ2Gm5OYk54E24RAiEUAJ9f0c9XbzT5yeeeP8bPZdgGe/Ma9wCfTn5c
wCWnvRM9J3IEMevxYluzuF0=
=DTYX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Tal Kelrich: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Mydoom"
- In reply to: Jeremiah Cornelius: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)"
- Next in thread: Scott Francis: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|