Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:19:29 +0100
From:      Bart Matthaei <bart@dreamflow.nl>
To:        freebsd-security@rikrose.net
Cc:        security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Best security topology for FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <20011121181929.A15275@heresy.dreamflow.nl>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0111211653410.8343-100000@pkl.net>; from freebsd-security@rikrose.net on Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 05:01:15PM %2B0000
References:  <7052044C7D7AD511A20200508B5A9C585169B6@MAGRAT> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0111211653410.8343-100000@pkl.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 05:01:15PM +0000, freebsd-security@rikrose.net wrote:
> Basically, ipfw doesn't give as much control over the packets and
> filtering as ipfilter, so use both.

Care to explain why ? I think ipfw/ipf handle packets just as well..
The only thing i recall is a story about ipfw sending packets trough
userland (?!). But thats just a vague story i've read somewhere.

I dont see why ipfw can't do what he needs. Ipfw works pretty well
with NAT, and it's good with traffic shaping. And I personally haven't
had any troubles with ipfw filtering.

Regards,

B.

--
Bart Matthaei                 bart@dreamflow.nl

/* Welcome to my world.. You just live in it */

--CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7++Ihgcc6pR+tCegRAhQUAKC0OftBR5KxsuzRMHhOiM+Sk1+mkwCfScoD
M1a8XMAm7VnxvCpMiQmWCq0=
=V4E3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--CE+1k2dSO48ffgeK--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011121181929.A15275>