From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jan 28 5:44:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C297437B402; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from madman.nectar.cc (madman.nectar.cc [10.0.1.111]) by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7F94C; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:44:27 -0600 (CST) Received: (from nectar@localhost) by madman.nectar.cc (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0SDiRj38385; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:44:27 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nectar) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:44:27 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: "Patrick M. Hausen" Cc: security-officer@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Message-ID: <20020128134427.GF33952@madman.nectar.cc> References: <20020127.120138.07163985.imp@village.org> <200201280751.g0S7p5414157@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200201280751.g0S7p5414157@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Url: http://www.nectar.cc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:51:05AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Wouldn't we get rid of this entire argument, if IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT > was the default for the kernel part of ipfw and there was an option > IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_DENY for anyone preferring the "old" behaviour? This will not happen. Default-to-accept is unsafe. -- Jacques A. Vidrine http://www.nectar.cc/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message