From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 28 8:14:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.anp.nl (ns.anp.nl [195.81.24.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F53E14D85; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hvoers@anp.nl) Received: from ns.anp.nl (ns.anp.nl [195.81.24.2]) by ns.anp.nl (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA16166; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:11:36 +0200 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:11:36 +0200 (cest) From: Henk van Oers To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: Nate Williams , Joe Greco , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > If it will get ALL of you to give it a rest, how about: > > > per-rule logging limits > > > logging limit raising > > > logging limit resetting > > > Which would all NOT affect the statistics? Separate statistics/logging counters is fine, but i don't need per-rule limits, a global limit is ok --> sysctl -w for raising and ipfw zerolog (or reset) for resetting. And then ... securelevel == 3 I think it is better NOT to permit 'sysctl -w', 'ipfw *' AND a logging limmit, just process the logfile faster to avoid DoS > > > > We need more input from people who use the code, to make sure they don't > > depend on the current 'features', or can live with changes to them. If you can keep the foot print small i can live with it. > > > > Implementing it is the easy part, making sure it's the right thing to do > > is the hard part. Right! > > Well, the easy part is done, except for raising limits. Look: > ipfw: 1 Deny ICMP:8.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 out via lo0 > ipfw: 1 Deny ICMP:8.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 out via lo0 > ipfw: limit 2 reached on rule #1 > ipfw: Entry 1 logging count reset. > ipfw: 1 Deny ICMP:8.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 out via lo0 > ipfw: 1 Deny ICMP:8.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 out via lo0 > ipfw: limit 2 reached on rule #1 > > I think this feature should DEFINITELY go in. I'm going to clean it up some > (ip_fw.c itself), and then make a set of diffs for this feature. > Nice? :) Nice? Depends on the diffs AND the man page ;-) Henk. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message