Hardware backdoors in Lenovo?
Do any of you feel like this is a non-story? Or should I reconsider purchasing Lenovo hardware in the future? http://www.afr.com/p/technology/spy_agencies_ban_lenovo_pcs_on_security_HVgcKTHp4bIA4ulCPqC7SL -t
Re: Transparent firewall (bridge) with DMZ + LAN
Sorry for the confusion. I understand that bridging is possible under OpenBSD but it's also my understanding that if I have interfaces A, B, and C, I can bridge A to either B or C, but not both. Is this correct? Referring to this topology: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/DMZ_network_diagram_1_firewall.svg I would like to use this setup but with bridging on the firewall if at all possible. Am I able to keep my firewall acting as the choke point between all three segments (DMZ, LAN, EXT) while using bridges for transparency? Hope this makes a little more sense. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Felipe Alfaro Solana felipe.alf...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM, openbsder openbs...@gmail.com wrote: I am currently interested in setting up a three-legged network topology, using OBSD+PF as the firewall appliance. Originally, I was going to simply have the firewall equipped with three network cards: one for DMZ, one for LAN, the other for EXT/WAN/Internet (whatever you call this). The idea was for a switch to be used on both DMZ and LAN, providing NAT on both segments. Pretty straight forward. Recently, it has been suggested that a transparent firewall implementation is ideal where possible. But as far as I understand, transparency is only available when the firewall acts as a bridge between TWO networks. How would I keep my DMZ and LAN both while using a bridging firewall. Is it even possible? What do you mean? Whether OpenBSD supports bridging? Whether PF supports L2-based filtering? Whether you can have two interfaces in a bridge and have, at the same time, L2-based filtering and L3-based filtering? By L2-based filtering I mean having the firewall inspect frames/packets from interfaces that are bridged together that do not have an IP address configured (i.e. L2-switching). -- http://www.felipe-alfaro.org/blog/disclaimer/
Re: Slow SATA write speeds with SMB
Or write the support yourself... -Original Message- From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Syntic Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:50 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Slow SATA write speeds with SMB So from what I can tell... my chipset is crap and nobody wants to develop/fix AHCI support for it, so I either buy a new motherboard, or give up and use IDE rather than AHCI? :) Marco Peereboom wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:06:18AM +0200, frantisek holop wrote: hmm, on Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:48:15PM -0500, Marco Peereboom said that some of the devs really need to give up their thinkpads and start buying cheap msi or other stuff with amd and nvidia monstrosities :] Right, dealing with hardware that is unreliable on a daily basis is exactly what I need. I mean I am totally not busy at all so what is a random reboot here and there anyway. all hw is unrealible to some degree, that's why we make backups. i am sure there are lenovo models that pack some shitty components.. my thinkpad had it's own peculiarities (apm not working was one of them). I don't use stinkpads either ;-) and once again, for the record. that was a joke. there is a smiley. geez. i know it's monday but loosen up a bit You need to go write some acpi code and tell me again to loosen up. Once you have taken a few bites of that shittaco tell me again how funny this is. -f -- windows error: 004 erroneous error. nothing wrong. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-SATA-write-speeds-with-SMB-tp23130953p23146398.htm l Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Self Restraint (Was: Re: GPL = BSD + DRM [Was: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense])
Come on now people; you're upset that this debate is even being held, yet you fuel it's fire with your senseless replies. Arguing with a troll makes you a troll. Ban the guy, ignore the guy, 'shut the guy up', I don't care how you do it but for the sake of how this shit is reflecting on the openbsd community and for the sake of my sanity, please end this childish thread. Breen Ouellette wrote: Han Boetes wrote: You lie. You insult. You threaten. I'd love to meet _you_ in person too. Well I have met him (Theo) in person several times, and I think he's a pretty stand up guy. I've never known him to lie, but insults and threats usually flow freely when he feels the behaviour of others warrants it. I don't know you, Han, but you have been on this list long enough to know that most of the time your opinion is in the minority, sometimes even a minority of one. There's nothing wrong with that, you are allowed your opinions in those places that value freedom, and many of us on this list come from such places. However, given the long list of threads where your opinion is not shared by most of us, you may want to think about self-imposing a limit of technical discussion only while on OpenBSD lists. This is Theo's sandbox (I know there are others in the project, but Theo is the manager, lets not start that argument again), which means he is gracious enough to allow you to remain even though he has made it obvious that he doesn't appreciate your opinions. If nothing else, he is true to his word about being open. Most others would have banned you by now. I don't want to discuss this with you because there is nothing positive that would come from such a discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there is nothing being gained any time you clash with the list. Hopefully you will see reason in restricting the content of your posts. If not you will simply be added to my block list, as I suspect others have already done, which will not benefit you in any way. Breeno
