Slashdot Mirror


New PF on FreeBSD snapshot available

Dan writes "Pyun YongHyeon and Max Laier announce a new release of PF for FreeBSD, which is available for download. Since the first release of PF at the end of March 2003, PF has undergone several major updates such as -current and ALTQ support. They have also removed bugs in IPv6, module handling and table support code and believe the current version 0.61 is very close to production use."

6 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Re:PF? by TilJ · · Score: 3, Informative

    PF is short for 'packet filter', and it's the native firewall code for OpenBSD. Here's the man page for the config file.

    PF is fairly new compared to IPFW and IPFilter, but it has reapidly been gaining advanced features and capabilities. Porting it to other operating systems is a good thing IMO - the more competition in this field, the better ;-)

    --
    "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
  2. Re:Now we have to relearn FreeBSD networking?? by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, this is nothing like in Linux. In Linux-land, each new kernel brought out a brand-new, almost compeltely incompatible packet filter. ipfwadm, ipchains, iptables. The syntax changed. The features changed. There was no way to use the old filter. There were wrapper scripts to try and simulate this, but they are crud. Heck, the packet filters themselves are crud.

    In FreeBSD, there's IPFW *or* IPFilter *or* Packet Filter. IPFW has been around a long time, and the syntax has changed very little. New features have been added, though, but all the old features still work. Same with IPF. Nobody is forced to switch from IPFW to IPF or PF. They can continue to use IPFW.

    It's much nicer to be able to continue to use the same packet filter across minor *and* major versions of an OS. It's also nice to have a choice of two or three packet filters.

    I'll definitely stick to BSD for packet filtering. Linux is nothing more than a toy.

  3. For those not keeping score... by drdink · · Score: 3, Informative
    PF is the Packet Filter used in the latest releases of OpenBSD. OpenBSD developed pf after a licensing dispute with Darren Reed basically resulted in him telling OpenBSD to go to hell.

    FreeBSD, up to now, has had two different firewalling methods. First off, there is the natively developed ipfw tool, which recently got a renovation and is now ipfw2 in -CURRENT. The alternative to ipfw is Darren Reed's ipfilter, also known as just ipf. Both ipfw and ipfilter share similar capabilities, and it is generally user preference as to which one is used in FreeBSD.

    Now, it seems somebody has made the effort to port yet another firewalling mechanism to FreeBSD, this time pf. The features it claims to have over ipfw are:

    • built-in variable expansion
    • built-in NAT and preventing NAT detection
    • table (a kind of very large blocks of address) support
    • packet normalization
    • state modulation
    • powerful state tracking
    • automatic rule optimization
    • queueing with ALTQ
    • load balancing with multiple routes

    Presumably, some of these are rather desirable features. However, it is beyond me why FreeBSD needs yet another way to do firewalling when the interfaces and systems we have now already work well. It is my opinion that instead of porting something proprietary to OpenBSD like pf, time should have been spent either patching these features into ipfilter or ipfw to add functionality to an already accepted and loved firewalling mechanism. There is no reason FreeBSD needs to dig a deeper firewalling grave for itself like OpenBSD has done.

    --
    Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
    1. Re:For those not keeping score... by Huge+Pi+Removal · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read the man page for ipfw and compare & contrast with the man page for pf, you can immediately see just how much better pf is.

      ipfw is basically a basic packet filter with a few things bodged on top of it (variable expansion, keeping state, etc) (OK, that's a bit unfair, but it's what it *feels* like to use). pf is a built-from-the-ground-up total firewall solution, with a hell of a lot of flexibility, and also several functions which will do in one line what it takes ipfw rather longer to do (e.g. anti-spoofing). Plus the simple command "scrub in all" on your border router immediately renders most TCP-fragmentation attacks benign.

      Essentially, if you want a router with a bit of filtering, ipfw will do you. If you want a serious firewall, go for pf. However, if you want a serious firewall, you should already be going with OpenBSD anyway :)

      --
      - Oliver

      The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
  4. Re:Now we have to relearn FreeBSD networking?? by Istealmymusic · · Score: 1, Informative
    In Linux, each program is backwards compatible with the previous major kernels. You can run ipchains and it's modules on linux 2.4, even though 2.4 uses iptables and so forth.

    Can you run freebsd 3.x software on freebsd 4.x?

    The AC already replied, but I just want to point out he or she is correct. FreeBSD 5.0, by default, includes compatiable libraries and interfaces to run older code. This includes compat2, compat3, and (with the release of 5.0) compat4. There are kernel options, such as COMPAT_FREEBSD4, which can be removed if you wish to sacrifice the ability to run older 4.0 applications for some space. You can even enable the syscall.master option COMPAT4 to transparently wrap 4.0 syscalls when appropriate.

    Therefore:

    • In Linux, each program is backwards compatible with the previous major kernels.
    • In FreeBSD, each program is backwards compatible with the previous major and minor kernels
    • In Windows, each program is backwards compatible with the previous versions of Windows and DOS

    You have no argument, as all major operating systems support backwards compatibility in one form or another. Programmers don't just break interfaces at their whim (unless they submit Linux patches). In fact, I would go as far to say that FreeBSD is more backwards compatible than many other operating systems: FreeBSD can run Linux executables.

    --
    "The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
  5. Means more choice, I think we Do need it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    PF means more choice and its not like it takes that much more space in the distribution
    Also means I will have to port my "ROQ" script to it as well so people can easily set it up on FreeBSD 5.1 go to http://www.roq.com/bsd/ and you will see what I mean