From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 4 09:01:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5922B16A4BF for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 09:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netlx014.civ.utwente.nl (netlx014.civ.utwente.nl [130.89.1.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7298E43FE0 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 09:01:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from r.s.a.vandomburg@student.utwente.nl) Received: from gog (gog.student.utwente.nl [130.89.165.107]) by netlx014.civ.utwente.nl (8.11.7/HKD) with SMTP id h94G12010156 for ; Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:01:03 +0200 Message-ID: <006b01c38a90$dea3b420$6ba55982@gog> From: "Roderick van Domburg" To: Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:02:10 +0200 Organization: University of Twente MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: When to use setup keyword? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:01:06 -0000 Hello everyone, I was pondering if blindly trailing every tcp rule with the 'setup' keyword would incur any performance loss or security hazard. I've got a server setup serving FTP, SSH, SMTP, DNS and HTTP. My rules in question are the following: allow tcp from any to {$ip} dst-port 21 setup allow tcp from any to {$ip} dst-port 22 setup allow tcp from any to {$ip} dst-port 25 setup allow tcp from any to {$ip} dst-port 53 setup allow tcp from any to {$ip} dst-port 80 setup All services run just fine, but I was thinking that excluding 'setup' here and there would make for a cleaner solution? For example, I don't think that HTTP (even 1.1) requires the setup keyword does it? Regards, Roderick