From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 10:03:57 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A92816A4CE; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:03:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA5443D31; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:03:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i1QI3sTA073881; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:03:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost)i1QI3sxp073880; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:03:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:03:54 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" Message-ID: <20040226180354.GB73761@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <200402260234.i1Q2YDx1014240@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040226060126.GA70201@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20040226154655.GE46714@madman.celabo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040226154655.GE46714@madman.celabo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Max Laier cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/pf/net if_pflog.c if_pflog.h if_pfsync.c if_pfsync.h pf.c pf_ioctl.c pf_norm.c pf_osfp.c pf_table.c pfvar.h src/sys/contrib/pf/netinet in4_cksum.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:03:57 -0000 On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:46:55AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > [Disclaimer: I am long-time, loyal IPFilter user and I think everything > else is crap. :-) ] > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:01:26PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > > Was this import discussed on arch@ or current@? We now have ipfw, ipfilter, > > and pf in the base system. How many more firewall packages are we going > > to import into the base system? Are you going to remove ipfw or ipfilter? > > Is there a NO_PF make.conf knob? > > Choice is good. Three firewalls is maybe pushing the limit, but these > three are Very Important to our community. ports/security/pf gave you choice. This is a danger slope (ie., what about postfix, exim, bash, and ksh?). > NO_PF, NO_IPF, and NO_IPFW would be good--- anyone have tested patches? > > The only downside IMHO is now I have to watch for security issues > in pf :-) A thankless job no doubt. So, THANK YOU! -- Steve