From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 28 00:59:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89FA16A40A for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:59:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4741613C471 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:59:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from [88.66.19.181] (helo=amd64.laiers.local) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML29c-1HAyOW1CyW-0000n2; Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:59:44 +0100 From: Max Laier Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:59:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <45B684BD.8090706@gmail.com> <45BA0815.80708@gmail.com> <000301c74153$30d86ed0$92894c70$@ca> In-Reply-To: <000301c74153$30d86ed0$92894c70$@ca> X-Face: ,,8R(x[kmU]tKN@>gtH1yQE4aslGdu+2]; R]*pL,U>^H?)gW@49@wdJ`H<=?utf-8?q?=25=7D*=5FBD=0A=09U=5For=3D=5CmOZf764=26nYj=3DJYbR1PW0ud?=>|!~,,CPC.1-D$FG@0h3#'5"k{V]a~.<=?utf-8?q?mZ=7D44=23Se=7Em=0A=09Fe=7E=5C=5DX5B=5D=5Fxj?=(ykz9QKMw_l0C2AQ]}Ym8)fU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1402097.FxNa0dWq8k"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200701280159.42895.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:61c499deaeeba3ba5be80f48ecc83056 X-Provags-ID2: V01U2FsdGVkX1/E4uGkx+iAba6Fh/gnFYQY1gemQtEcA/tQG9bONV1N79tPiYIEH4bM8gvgzS2vDXoG4P84sOwrcjtudWdJZC4F2PvyTQwzMa0O7pQqSkJ2HQ== Subject: Re: PF in kernel or as a module X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:59:45 -0000 --nextPart1402097.FxNa0dWq8k Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline [ Please don't top-post and fix quotation ] On Friday 26 January 2007 15:06, Kevin K. wrote: > I'm curious if there has been some benchmarking done to compare the two > methods of enabling PF. You will not be able to measure any difference whatsoever. The main call=20 path is exactly the same with either method. You are of course welcome=20 to perform a benchmark to verify. Unless pfsync or ALTQ is required,=20 using the module is the preferred method when tracking a newer security=20 branch as it will enable freebsd-update of the kernel+modules. > The security debate could be argued to be circumstantial, but I'd like > to hear from people who use it in production via loaded module, as my > only experience with PF is building it into the kernel. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Martin Turgeon > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:54 AM > To: Max Laier > Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: PF in kernel or as a module > > > Max Laier a =E9crit : > > On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:57, Martin Turgeon wrote: > > > I would like to start a debate on this subject. Which method of > enabling PF is the more secure (buffer overflow for example), the > fastest, the most stable, etc. I searched the web for some info but > without result. So I would like to know your opinion on the pros and > cons of each method. > > > Kernel module - loaded via loader.conf - is as secure as built in.=20 > There is a slight chance, that somebody might be able to compromise the > module on disk, but then they are likely to be able to write to the > kernel (in the same location) as well. An additional plus is the > possibility of freebsd-update if you do not have to build a custom > kernel. > > Note that some features are only available when built in: pfsync and > altq - this is not going to change for technical reasons. > > Performance wise there should be no difference. > > > > Thanks a lot, that's exactly the type of answer I wanted. I'm always > surprised to see how much knowledge the FreeBSD mailinglists are > sharing. > Thank you for your effort > Martin Turgeon > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" =2D-=20 /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --nextPart1402097.FxNa0dWq8k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFu/V+XyyEoT62BG0RAndTAJ4wp5/jp4vMUVrmY/LbMo1sC7EbkwCfWMc8 xFj8m3zVkbuW5ZXF4peLLpo= =FSx2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1402097.FxNa0dWq8k--