From owner-freebsd-security Fri Jun 29 16:25:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (diskworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE7B937B401 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:25:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 3941 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Jun 2001 23:29:36 -0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 02:29:36 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: appleseed@hushmail.com Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What is ipfw telling me ? Message-ID: <20010630022936.E887@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: appleseed@hushmail.com, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200106292259.PAA15697@user7.hushmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200106292259.PAA15697@user7.hushmail.com>; from appleseed@hushmail.com on Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 04:00:09PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 04:00:09PM -0500, appleseed@hushmail.com wrote: > >Uhm. ipfw(4) is stateful, too. I suggest you take a look at ipfw(4) > >and ipfw(8) :) > Uhm. So what? Ipf > ipfw ;-) In some respects, probably. Your statement, though, seemed to imply that ipfw was not able of keeping track of state, and ipf was. That's what I tried to correct. G'luck, Peter -- If there were no counterfactuals, this sentence would not have been paradoxical. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message