Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-28 Thread Jordan Hubbard
> I know someone who is willing to substantially revise the install > process, BUT: That's too much of a BUT. :) > 1)They will want to keep it proprietary for commercial > use for a period of at least a year, and that would Which is why it wouldn't be FreeBSD. FreeBSD is free and tha

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-27 Thread Terry Lambert
> I've also sent out numerous appeals to the various mailing lists for > someone, anyone, to come up with something better than sysinstall > which was somehow less grandiose than my own follow-on designs or, > failing that, to significantly revamp sysinstall itself. The fact > that nobody has ste

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:10:35PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > So one doesn't have to change the source, would you be willing to add > WANT_foo logic so one could just set it in /etc/make.conf? Or add > ${IPFIREWALL_OPTS} to CFLAGS and then IPFIREWALL_OPTS could be set in > /etc/make.conf? Ha

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:47:35PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > G. Hot button. :) Quite sorry, didn't mean to push any buttons. But once again I just got hit by having a anchient /stand/sysinstall not be able to find any devices when I wanted to use it's Fdisk editor. Way back when I w

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Jordan Hubbard
> I disagree. Vaporware (example Son of Sysinstall) has kept us from > improving things until the fabled newstuff arrives. That's actually a bad example since just a brief glance at the cvs commit logs for sysinstall will show that a number of fingers have dived into it over the years and "impro

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread John Baldwin
On 26-Oct-00 David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:18:55PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: >> Ugh, no. Peter's forthcoming config(8) changes will allow you to >> specify kernel options to use when building modules (actually, it >> builds modules in the same environment as the kernel) to p

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:18:55PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > Ugh, no. Peter's forthcoming config(8) changes will allow you to > specify kernel options to use when building modules (actually, it > builds modules in the same environment as the kernel) to properly > handle this. Just be patient

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread John Baldwin
On 26-Oct-00 David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:31:57PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote: >> #If you want it verbose >> #CFLAGS+= -DIPFIREWALL_VERBOSE >> #CFLAGS+= -DIPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=100 >> # >> #If you want it to pass all packets by default >> #CFLAGS+= -DIPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_A

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:31:57PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote: > #If you want it verbose > #CFLAGS+= -DIPFIREWALL_VERBOSE > #CFLAGS+= -DIPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=100 > # > #If you want it to pass all packets by default > #CFLAGS+= -DIPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT So one doesn't have to change the so

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Rogier R. Mulhuijzen
>This makes it difficult to configure remotely without getting locked out >of the >system. >Is there a way to cause the ipfw module to default to a different policy upon >loading? I'm not sure about influencing modules with options in kernel config, I'll leave that to the pro's but you could a

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:36:40PM -0700, Glen Gross wrote: > Thanks, I suppose I should have been able to figure that one out... if I could > log in! I will fix it when I get home. :-) Playing with firewalls without out-of-band (serial console, nocmonkey, etc) is dangerous. -- Bill Fumerol

RE: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Glen Gross
Thanks, I suppose I should have been able to figure that one out... if I could log in! I will fix it when I get home. :-) On Thursday, October 26, 2000 1:32 PM, Bill Fumerola [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:31:03PM -0700, Glen Gross wrote: > > > > I built a 4.1.1

Re: ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:31:03PM -0700, Glen Gross wrote: > > I built a 4.1.1 kernel, and the module was built, but when I load the ipfw > module with > > #kldload ipfw > > it defaults to a deny_all policy, even though I have default_to_accept in my > kernel configuration. > This makes it d

ipfw question.

2000-10-26 Thread Glen Gross
I built a 4.1.1 kernel, and the module was built, but when I load the ipfw module with #kldload ipfw it defaults to a deny_all policy, even though I have default_to_accept in my kernel configuration. This makes it difficult to configure remotely without getting locked out of the system. Is t