From owner-freebsd-ipfw Tue Jul 27 13: 5:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from aurora.sol.net (aurora.sol.net [206.55.65.76]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF891522C; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgreco@aurora.sol.net) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by aurora.sol.net (8.9.2/8.9.2/SNNS-1.02) id PAA14464; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:05:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199907272005.PAA14464@aurora.sol.net> Subject: Re: securelevel and ipfw zero In-Reply-To: <199907271959.NAA27155@mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Jul 27, 1999 1:59:58 pm" To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:05:11 -0500 (CDT) Cc: jgreco@ns.sol.net, nate@mt.sri.com, hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > > Again, it's not a fix, it's a feature. Not being able to mess with > > > > > counters (logging or otherwise) is a feature. It may be a feature that > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > you can do without, but that decision is not to be made lightly. > > > > > > > > I'm _saying_ to create a completely separate counter which has nothing to > > > > do with accounting. > > > > > > See above. > > > > I did see above. If the sole purpose of a counter is to turn _off_ a > > feature to prevent DoS attacks, and it is clearly desirable that the > > admin (or a representative entity such as a monitoring system) would > > want to be able to re-enable the logging under those same terms at some > > admin-specified interval, how exactly would you choose to implement this? > > What was originally intended and what it's used for now are two > different things. I agree; the function of verbose log limiting was overloaded onto the existing accounting counter. That is why I am saying that this really, really should be made into a separate log counter, whose sole function in life is counting for the purpose of determining VERBOSE_LIMIT excesses. I am not sure why you seem to have a problem with that. If I have a mechanism that exists for _one_ purpose and one purpose alone, why is it unacceptable to perform operation "X" (where X == zero it) on said device when that is an action that will cause it to work in a desired manner? > I'd like to see people other than you, I, and Matt discussing this. > Other people who use this feature of IPFW that have an opinion one way > or the other should speak up. > > A group of two very opinionated people doesn't make a consensus, or > necessarily the 'right' decision. :) :) :) ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message