FreeBSD - Secure by DEFAULT ?? [hosts.allow]

[Peter C. Lai]

What are you meaning by "native"? They both exist as part of the base FreeBSD
kernel; so in that sense, both ipf and ipfw are "native" to FreeBSD. I don't
see how this argument is appropriate for choosing one over the other anyway.

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 06:22:55PM -0400, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 01:59:27PM -0700, Chris Odell wrote:
> > 
> > But why IPFW? IPF is *BSD native wall. I actually use both - IPF for
> > firewalling, and IPFW for throttling via dummy net. My recommended
> > reading for IPF and IPFW is "Building Linux and OpenBSD Firewalls"...
> 
> Where did you get this information?
> 
> Native firewall for FreeBSD is ipfw, AFAIK.  It's even used on OS X as a
> native firewall, due to Darwin's FreeBSD roots.
> 
> Also, OpenBSD stopped using ipf four releases ago.  The native firewall
> for OpenBSD is pf.  pf inherited much of the syntax from ipf, but also
> extended it and added some features.
> 
> That said, I personally find ipf quite a good stateful firewall and its
> syntax can feel more natural than ipfw syntax.  It also works on Solaris
> and other OS's besides *BSDs.
> 
> -- 
> Zvezdan Petkovic <zvezdan at cs.wm.edu>
> http://www.cs.wm.edu/~zvezdan/
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-security at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

-- 
Peter C. Lai
University of Connecticut
Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology
Yale University School of Medicine
SenseLab | Research Assistant
http://cowbert.2y.net/