PF in kernel or as a module

[Max Laier]

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 22:57, Martin Turgeon wrote:
> I would like to start a debate on this subject. Which method of
> enabling PF is the more secure (buffer overflow for example), the
> fastest, the most stable, etc. I searched the web for some info but
> without result. So I would like to know your opinion on the pros and
> cons of each method.

Kernel module - loaded via loader.conf - is as secure as built in.  There 
is a slight chance, that somebody might be able to compromise the module 
on disk, but then they are likely to be able to write to the kernel (in 
the same location) as well.  An additional plus is the possibility of 
freebsd-update if you do not have to build a custom kernel.

Note that some features are only available when built in: pfsync and 
altq - this is not going to change for technical reasons.

Performance wise there should be no difference.

-- 
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier at freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier at EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/attachments/20070124/8ed7a414/attachment.pgp