|
||||||||||
Which daemon are you referring to? You should check out the Shorewall mailing list - they don't seem to have the same problem. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan De Graeve [mailto:Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:19 AM To: Peter Allgeyer; Giobbi, Ryan Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch; Chris Buechler Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option? I last year builded a linux firewall for a client which wanted to have UPNP for there LAN to the internet connection. I told him the danger of this but he still wanted to have this (and he payed for it) so I did it. After running that box for a half year now it turns out to be very unstable with the free UPNP daemon running (the UPNP daemon just crashes at certain points leaving the ports open). I also patched the daemon to also cleanup certain ports and added some security checks but even then the rest of the daemons are unstable... I don't think it's a good idea to have unstable software on a firewall that tries to be stable... J. -- Jonathan De Graeve Network/System Administrator Imelda vzw Informatica Dienst 015/50.52.98 jonathan dot de dot graeve at imelda dot be --------- Always read the manual for the correct way to do things because the number of incorrect ways to do things is almost infinite --------- -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Peter Allgeyer [mailto:allgeyer at web dot de] Verzonden: donderdag 1 december 2005 12:10 Aan: Giobbi, Ryan CC: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch; Chris Buechler Onderwerp: RE: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option? Am Mittwoch, den 30.11.2005, 20:54 -0500 schrieb Giobbi, Ryan: > In all seriousness, let me explain something. Open source works when > people contribute what they want to see in a project. It *DOES NOT* > work when people do nothing but bitch, moan and complain about what > they want and don't do anything about it. Want uPNP? Make an image > with support that works, and submit the code to Manuel and/or the dev > list. Obviously from past threads, those of us that contribute > couldn't give a shit less if uPNP is supported or not. The other > alternative is to offer up $X for whoever can implement uPNP. If X is > sufficiently large, someone will do it. This isn't a whining > competition with the winner getting whatever feature they want. > > If it doesn't make it into the base system, I would gladly host the > uPNP-enabled images on my site, and link to them from the > documentation, so the effort wouldn't be for naught. > > sorry, tired as hell of this and similar crap that people want to moan > about but do nothing to resolve. Thanks, Chris (or Ryan?). Exactly what I'm thinking of it. BR, PIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- copyleft(c) by | People disagree with me. I just ignore them. Peter Allgeyer | _-_ -- Linus Torvalds, regarding the use of C++ | 0(o_o)0 for the Linux kernel ---------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------------------------- --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch |