Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:37:06 GMT From: "Dr. Markus Waldeck"<waldeck@gmx.de> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: docs/106315: man blackhole mentions ONLY ipfw Message-ID: <200612041337.kB4Db6jS016041@www.freebsd.org> Resent-Message-ID: <200612041350.kB4Do4bL063642@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 106315 >Category: docs >Synopsis: man blackhole mentions ONLY ipfw >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-doc >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: doc-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Mon Dec 04 13:50:03 GMT 2006 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Dr. Markus Waldeck >Release: 7.0-CURRENT-200611 >Organization: >Environment: FreeBSD fbh 7.0-CURRENT-200611 FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT-200611 root@fb:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/FB70B01 i386 >Description: man blackhole: > WARNING > The TCP and UDP blackhole features should not be regarded as a replace- > ment for ipfw(8) as a tool for firewalling a system. In order to create > a highly secure system, ipfw(8) should be used for protection, not the > blackhole feature. I agree absolutely with the intention of the warning. But ipfw is NOT the only firewall implementation which is available in FreeBSD! >How-To-Repeat: >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612041337.kB4Db6jS016041>