full-disclosure - OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: incognito at patria.ath.cx (Filipe A.)
Subject: OpenBSD 'pf' port (was FreeBSD heap to Linux)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeremiah Cornelius wrote:

|>>What could you get from pf that you couldn't get from iptables (I've
|>>not played with the little devil yet)?
|
| Human-readable syntax.
|
| Lucid syntax is an indispensable security measure.  Errors should be
GLARING
| and obvious!

~ Apart from such subjective feature could you point us to any real
reference/test regarding PF vs netfilter? I've used both. I don't have a
problem with iptables syntax which I find more "objective" than PF's.
But I'd like to read an unbiased comparative article on performance and
detailed features that would clearly state the advantages of either one.

best regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFAGUZ2Gm5OYk54E24RAiEUAJ9f0c9XbzT5yeeeP8bPZdgGe/Ma9wCfTn5c
wCWnvRM9J3IEMevxYluzuF0=
=DTYX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----