From owner-freebsd-security Tue Jul 25 15:31:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (adsl-63-201-63-44.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F1037BB59 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 072649EE01; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F335D9B001; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:31:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problems with natd and simple firewall In-Reply-To: <397E10CC.BF84B0E7@math.missouri.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Well, now that I understand a bit how dynamic rules work, I'm going to > agree with this vote against my own idea. Those dynamic rules are > really very very nice. How'd we ever live without 'em? ;) > But maybe a dynamic rule set should be put into the default rc.firewall - > perhaps not replace simple, but an additional - maybe call it dynamic. It may well be added... Stateful ipfw is a relatively new happening (ipfw didn't previously have check/keep-state, you had to use ipf for such features). > Also, it would be good to add some comments to rc.firewall to explain this. Aye... A thoroughly-commeneted 'dynamic' rc.firewall option may be the best thing to come out of all this. -mrh To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message