From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 19 15:59:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592FC16A4CE for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bunrab.catwhisker.org (adsl-63-193-123-122.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.193.123.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B298743D55 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@catwhisker.org) Received: from bunrab.catwhisker.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i7JFxJbO018280 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from david@bunrab.catwhisker.org) Received: (from david@localhost) by bunrab.catwhisker.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i7JFxJKo018279 for current@freebsd.org; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from david) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <200408191559.i7JFxJKo018279@bunrab.catwhisker.org> To: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> Subject: Re: RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:20 -0000 >Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:43:34 -0400 >From: Barney Wolff >To: current@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS >Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org >I was inspired by the PFIL_HOOKS discussion to check my firewall rules :) Checking firewall rules is a Good Thing. :-) >There were none, other than 65535. Apparently, /etc/rc.d/ipfw attempts >to kldload ipfw, which will fail if ipfw is compiled into the kernel, >and since the precmd failed, the _cmd will not be run. When did it >become mandatory to have ipfw as a module, not compiled in? Is there >some rationale for this? It strikes me as rather dangerous, especially >for firewalls, especially when default-to-accept is chosen. Am I just >confused, and missing some obvious bit of config? Well, color me confused, then: g1-15(5.2-C)[1] uname -a FreeBSD g1-15.catwhisker.org 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #273: Wed Aug 18 15:55:18 PDT 2004 root@g1-15.catwhisker.org:/common/S2/obj/usr/src/sys/LAPTOP_30W i386 g1-15(5.2-C)[2] sudo ipfw list Password: 00100 allow ip from any to any via lo0 00200 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 00300 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any .... 03200 deny log ip from any to any 65535 deny ip from any to any g1-15(5.2-C)[3] kldstat Id Refs Address Size Name 1 7 0xc0400000 4b9ac4 kernel 2 14 0xc08ba000 536b0 acpi.ko 3 1 0xc1829000 17000 linux.ko g1-15(5.2-C)[4] Or am I missing your point? >Is it relevant that my /usr is on vinum, and the rules are in /usr/local/etc? Hmm... dunno. I'm not using vinum, and my rules are created via a shell script from a template on /etc (via dhcp-exit-hooks). Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org Evidence of curmudgeonliness: becoming irritated with the usage of the word "speed" in contexts referring to quantification of network performance, as opposed to "bandwidth" or "latency."