[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl dot org>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] How / why is pfSense different from m0n0wall?
 Date:  Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:37:50 +0200
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:49:58PM -0700, david davidson wrote:

> Ahh. So pfSense is not well tested yet... I see.

Anecdotally (personally; caveat: I'm not a power user) 
pfsense is just as stable as m0n0 (I run it on wrap).
 
> Hmm...  WLAN seems like a pretty basic basic
> requirement for a SOHO FW/router combo. (?)
> 
> What about a hardware crypto helper?

I run my wrap with a soekris mini-pci crypto accelerator.
Overkill on my residential ADSL line, but I like low
CPU loads.
 
> I realize the BSD and Linux are different, but I have
> a very limited understanding of the differences.

Very different. Notice that pfsense uses pf, just as OpenBSD
(and now NetBSD).
 
> From a technical perspective, what are the various
> pros and cons of BSD vs. Linux in the context of a
> m0n0/pf/ipcop kind of project?

I would suggest to run *BSD on your firewall, just for
diversity's sake. Also, the track shows *BSD has fewer
vulnerabilities.

If you run a rare system, a secure system, on weird hardware,
you've got about all of your bases covered but not knowing
what you're doing.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
signature.asc (0.2 KB, application/pgp-signature)