On 10/13/05, Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de> wrote:
>
> No problem here. I do like it. Manuel, you forgot to say: May the
> flamewar begin ;-)
no kidding. ;)
> Yes? My mind tells me, that if anybody writes such a secure software
> he'll also take a deep look into his OS code. The audit process of
> OpenBSD convinces me.
>
yes, it is well audited without a doubt, and sure, it's definitely
secure. But we're not comparing it to something that's slopped
together half-cocked by developers who half don't know what they're
doing. If we were comparing it to Linux, I'd give you that one. ;)
(calm down Linux fans, I'm at least half joking) ;)
My point still stands - 2 years of m0n0wall and 0 security patches
required because of FreeBSD. Open couldn't be any more secure.
>
> All that effort tells me, that it is more than "a little more difficult"
> to port the code.
>
not really. The main problems thus far in 6 have been people
committing other things that would break CARP, or something like that.
That's happened...I believe twice.
In 5.x, it was a completely different story. It'd kernel panic that
it was going out of style. pfsense started on 5.x, and moved to 6.x
and hasn't looked back
> I can't see the availibility of filtering interfaces (if we don't want
> to go with the gif interface). Also it isn't *yet* in FreeBSD.
it's all fine with FreeBSD except the NAT-T support. The ipsec-tools
project has a patch.
http://groups.google.com/group/mailing.freebsd.net/browse_thread/thread/2672a5276b82bc14/7ceb9e5414b17e4%237ceb9e5414b17e4?sa=X&oi=groupsr&start=1&num=3
I don't see that small change being a big deal. Even with 4.x, we
have a number of patches specific to m0n0wall.
> > > * better bridging code: STP support and able to be filtered by pf
> >
> > so does FreeBSD 6.0.
>
> Another backport, see above.
>
so is FreeBSD's current dhclient, they all work just as well as they
do on Open. Just more examples of how when things are better in Open,
they make their way into Free.
>
> So why not using FreeBSD6 for pfsense and building m0n0wall around
> OpenBSD? Has it all to be the same?
>
no, but we need to make sure we're choosing the best platform for the
user base. for the many reasons previously addressed, Open is not the
best platform.
-Chris |