From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 24 00:53:33 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 4F63716A400 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:53:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.174]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA7613C45A for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:53:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from [88.64.177.213] (helo=amd64.laiers.local) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKwh2-1H9WOJ2mB1-0004XR; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:53:32 +0100 From: Max Laier Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:53:25 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <45B684BD.8090706@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <45B684BD.8090706@gmail.com> 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="nextPart1993469.oDF9YYB5g8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200701240153.30454.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:61c499deaeeba3ba5be80f48ecc83056 X-Provags-ID2: V01U2FsdGVkX19cM0mmeq90n9pt8YcfVqmd2Q6OivNQ8x7JF0/AC6a/VrsugxIojBM3xnHM9G+mgLcYR10v711ZoFG+WL7zzqrYACPh/cORhiInkhll6gAyBg== Cc: 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: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:53:33 -0000 --nextPart1993469.oDF9YYB5g8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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. There=20 is a slight chance, that somebody might be able to compromise the module=20 on disk, but then they are likely to be able to write to the kernel (in=20 the same location) as well. An additional plus is the possibility of=20 freebsd-update if you do not have to build a custom kernel. Note that some features are only available when built in: pfsync and=20 altq - this is not going to change for technical reasons. Performance wise there should be no difference. =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 --nextPart1993469.oDF9YYB5g8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFtq4KXyyEoT62BG0RAmp1AJ9dGZiP04BGnWbQMEFA3OpIid1V5QCdGCpN 9GLlTYgbqoVENsH7CiVWPG4= =rEVm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1993469.oDF9YYB5g8--