From owner-freebsd-security Sat Jul 29 23:46:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from internet.digitel2002.hu (internet.digitel2002.hu [213.163.0.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A0F337B9A1 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:46:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mico@bsd.hu) Received: from fmdb.c3.hu (dial-080.digitel2002.hu [213.163.2.80]) by internet.digitel2002.hu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA23348 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:46:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 1757 invoked by uid 1004); 29 Jul 2000 17:48:21 -0000 From: "Miklos Niedermayer" Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:48:21 +0200 To: Mike Hoskins Cc: Darren Reed , Pavol Adamec , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules) Message-ID: <20000729194821.B1716@bsd.hu> Mail-Followup-To: Niedermayer Miklos , Mike Hoskins , Darren Reed , Pavol Adamec , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200007270800.SAA23526@cairo.anu.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from mike@adept.org on Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:49:58PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0 - The Power to Serve Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hell, Mike Hoskins: > The only real reason I've heard ipf reccomended since ipfw got > keep-state/check-state is ipnat. I think that ipfw's statefullness is in a very early stage. -- ______ o _. __ / / / (_(_(__(_) @ bsd.hu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message