To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"I hope they get rid of that crappy application firewall and go back to using IPFW2 . Arghhh!"
I'm not a regular Mac OS X user, but didn't it use the packet filter (pf) instead of the IP firewall (ipfw2), or am I mixing up things here?
From my experience, ipfw2 (used on FreeBSD machines) does a great job. along with its ability to be configured very easily. You can setup a well configured firewall mechanism with very few rules and still have intended things working.
Well OSX never had PF as in OpenBSD's pf see link http://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/pf.html . The firewall that was in 10.4 and is still in 10.5 is IPFW from FreeBSD see link http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipfw&apropos=0&sektion=0&m...
The current thing apple is calling the firewall, is the Apple Application Firewall. This does not work the same way say PF or IPFW would. Rather then work by hooking into the kernel and filtering networking data at a low level; where you can see if the data is tcp or udp, the application firewall is allowing or denying applications ability to talk to the network. I.E. should safari.app be able to send and receive data. Now this is not a bad idea but the issue I have is that the front end program apple made for OS 10.5 is does not let you setup IPFW rules saying block all TCP traffic from IP BLAH. or Deny all IP in and then setup explicit allow rules. Apple IMHO needs to add and advanced firewall editing in the system prefs gizmo for the firewall to allow you to add ipfw rules . The application firewall's default setup does not address a number of firewall issues that ipfw + the application firewall could.







Member since:
2007-01-22
I hope they get rid of that crappy application firewall and go back to using IPFW2 . Arghhh!