From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jul 27 8:52:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from sn1oexchr01.nextvenue.com (sn1oexchr01.nextvenue.com [63.209.169.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED94737B857 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nevans@nextvenue.com) Received: FROM sn1exchmbx.nextvenue.com BY sn1oexchr01.nextvenue.com ; Thu Jul 27 11:50:23 2000 -0400 Received: by sn1exchmbx.nextvenue.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:47:45 -0400 Message-ID: <712384017032D411AD7B0001023D799B07CA71@sn1exchmbx.nextvenue.com> From: Nick Evans To: 'Siobhan Patricia Lynch' Cc: "'freebsd-security@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:47:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFF7E1.FD070060" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFF7E1.FD070060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yeah as far as I know, ipf does NOT work with bridging under FreeBSD, unfortunately. -----Original Message----- From: Siobhan Patricia Lynch [mailto:trish@bsdunix.net] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:51 AM To: Nick Evans Cc: 'freebsd-security@freebsd.org' Subject: RE: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules I'm not sure, never tried it, I *know* it works with OpenBSD which would be my choice if using ipf anyway. -Trish __ Trish Lynch FreeBSD - The Power to Serve trish@bsdunix.net Rush Networking trish@rush.net On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Nick Evans wrote: > It wouldn't work with ipf, period. IPF doesn't support bridging in FreeBSD > 4, no? or is your bridging in reference to something else? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Siobhan Patricia Lynch [mailto:trish@bsdunix.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:31 AM > To: Darren Reed > Cc: Reinoud; Gerhard Sittig; freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules) > > > I'm not saying that ipf is bad, in fact, prior to keep-state and > check-state in ipfw, I used ipf quite a bit. > > again, *some* people here know who I work for, but the networking going > into sites looks like this: > > cisco (non-stateful) -> freebsd bridging ipfw -> arrowpoint web content > switch -> clusters > > ipfw works quite well, but wouldn;t in this situation prior to freebsd 4.0 > > if theres something absolutely amazing in the next version if ipf that > makes my life hella better at work, I'll use it ;) > > as it is, I'm using OpenBSD/IPSec to tunnel and bridge packets from exodus > to the office (well not quite yet, but we have the go ahead on that > project) , which is irony, those who know who I am will agree ;) > > -Trish > > __ > > Trish Lynch > FreeBSD - The Power to Serve trish@bsdunix.net > Rush Networking trish@rush.net > > On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Darren Reed wrote: > > > In some mail from Siobhan Patricia Lynch, sie said: > > > > > > I actually use ipfw for everything, I can;t see any real advantage to > > > ipfilter in a situation that we're using it for (some people know > > > where I work) > > > > > > ipfilter has to be flushed and reloaded, I don;t have that luxury > > > > > > ipfw I can add rules on the fly. > > > > You can do that with ipfilter too. > > > > In fact, ipfilter allows you to make complete ruleset changes, on the > > fly with 0 security risk (i.e. there is no gap of "half your rules > > being in place"). > > > > Even at bootup, you can go from "no rules, default = block" to > > "full ruleset" and not have any packets slip between the cracks > > as various lines get added to allow/deny things. > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFF7E1.FD070060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules

Yeah as far as I know, ipf does NOT work with = bridging under FreeBSD, unfortunately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Siobhan Patricia Lynch [mailto:trish@bsdunix.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:51 AM
To: Nick Evans
Cc: 'freebsd-security@freebsd.org'
Subject: RE: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic = firewall rules


I'm not sure, never tried it, I *know* it works with = OpenBSD which would
be my choice if using ipf anyway.

-Trish

__

Trish Lynch
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve    =         trish@bsdunix.net
Rush Networking =         =         =         trish@rush.net

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Nick Evans wrote:

> It wouldn't work with ipf, period. IPF doesn't = support bridging in FreeBSD
> 4, no? or is your bridging in reference to = something else?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siobhan Patricia Lynch [mailto:trish@bsdunix.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:31 AM
> To: Darren Reed
> Cc: Reinoud; Gerhard Sittig; = freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: Re: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic = firewall rules)
>
>
> I'm not saying that ipf is bad, in fact, prior = to keep-state and
> check-state in ipfw, I used ipf quite a = bit.
>
> again, *some* people here know who I work for, = but the networking going
> into sites looks like this:
>
> cisco (non-stateful) -> freebsd bridging = ipfw -> arrowpoint web content
> switch -> clusters
>
> ipfw works quite well, but wouldn;t in this = situation prior to freebsd 4.0
>
> if theres something absolutely amazing in the = next version if ipf that
> makes my life hella better at work, I'll use it = ;)
>
> as it is, I'm using OpenBSD/IPSec to tunnel and = bridge packets from exodus
> to the office (well not quite yet, but we have = the go ahead on that
> project) , which is irony, those who know who I = am will agree ;)
>
> -Trish
>
> __
>
> Trish Lynch
> FreeBSD - The Power to Serve  =         trish@bsdunix.net
> Rush = Networking       =         =         =         trish@rush.net
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Darren Reed wrote:
>
> > In some mail from Siobhan Patricia Lynch, = sie said:
> > >
> > > I actually use ipfw for everything, I = can;t see any real advantage to
> > > ipfilter in a situation that we're = using it for (some people know
> > > where I work)
> > >
> > > ipfilter has to be flushed and = reloaded, I don;t have that luxury
> > >
> > > ipfw I can add rules on the = fly.
> >
> > You can do that with ipfilter too.
> >
> > In fact, ipfilter allows you to make = complete ruleset changes, on the
> > fly with 0 security risk (i.e. there is no = gap of "half your rules
> > being in place").
> >
> > Even at bootup, you can go from "no = rules, default =3D block" to
> > "full ruleset" and not have any = packets slip between the cracks
> > as various lines get added to allow/deny = things.
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to = majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe = freebsd-security" in the body of the message
> >
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to = majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" = in the body of the message
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFF7E1.FD070060-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message