Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 09:55:48 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Message-ID: <15441.36372.572274.479242@caddis.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20020125092154.U53456@clan.nothing-going-on.org> References: <20020124201411.A39351-100000@rockstar.stealthgeeks.net> <20020125092154.U53456@clan.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I recently got bit by this: I have firewall options configured into my > > kernel, and made the mistake of thinking that in order to disable > > this functionality to allow all traffic that I merely needed to remove the > > firewall_enable paramater from my rc.conf since firewall_enable is set to NO in > > /etc/defaults/rc.conf. > > > > This did not have the intended result of disabling the firewall, rather a > > default deny was applied. If firewall_enable is set to NO, wouldn't it make > > more sense to have the init scripts set net.inet.ip.fw.enable to 0, or am I > > missing something? > > > > Opinions welcome. > > I've got a hunch this needs to be a tri-state variable. > > YES -- Load the firewall rules > NO -- Do nothing, default policy is compiled in to the kernel > OFF -- Explicitly set net.inet.ip.fw.enable=0 Can you ever think of where 'NO' != 'OFF'. In the case of a wide-open firewall, 'NO' == 'OFF' gives the same functionality, and in the case of the default firewall setup (everything filtered), the computer can't be used for anything, so I'd consider it a mistake to enable the firewall with no rules *AND* have the network connections enabled. I think 'YES' and 'NO' would be fine. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15441.36372.572274.479242>