Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:10:02 -0800 (PST) From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/35686: blackhole(4) page seems to contradict itself in WARNING Message-ID: <200203090210.g292A2C52131@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/35686; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> To: swear@blarg.net Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/35686: blackhole(4) page seems to contradict itself in WARNING Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:01:46 +0000 "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> wrote: > > >Number: 35686 > >Category: docs > >Synopsis: blackhole(4) page seems to contradict itself in WARNING > >Description: > > The "warnings" section of the blackhole(4) man page has these two > statements: > > In order to create a highly secure system, ipfw(8) should be used > for protection, not the blackhole feature. > > This mechanism is not a substitute for securing a system. It should > be used together with other security mechanisms. To me, this sounds more redundant than contradicting (they both say that blackhole isn't sufficient for a "secure system"), but I can understand how someone might interpret it that way. Do you have any suggestions for a better wording? Perhaps just removing the first paragraph would suffice--that seems more like a plug for ipfw(8) than a bug in blackhole(4), anyway. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203090210.g292A2C52131>