nanog mailing list archives
Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application
From: Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:39:30 +0000
I, too, was not impressed with PFSense’s code. I’ve had to dig into it a couple of times to troubleshoot weird failure modes. I finally gave up. My time is too valuable, and the price of modern firewalls is fair for the value you get in serious regression testing and support. Also, I would not characterize PFSense as “reliable”. My PFsense boxes still require periodic reboots due to memory leaks, and sometimes just lock up. Yes, that happens with commercial boxen, but those events are far more rare. -mel
On May 6, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote: amuse wrote:+1 to a "Can you substantiate that claim please?" sentiment here. I've used it for years and found it to be reliable, flexible, feature-filled. And having the BSD CLI fully available has been a godsend.The code quality is terrible in a 1990s sort of way. I.e. no separation of code, html, logic, data structure or anything else. Everything is jumbled in together using coding methodologies which don't scale and which make it almost impossible to audit in a meaningful way. Specific problems: 1. the installation image ships with static dh params files, e.g.https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/master/src/etc/dh-parameters.1024This is a really bad idea and someone should issue a CVE for it. The reasons are clearly explained at:https://weakdh.org/https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/05/the_logjam_and_.html2. http params validation: a cursory glance at the output of "grep -r _GET pfsense/src" show that the authors did not use any http parameters validation. In addition, the output of $_GET is used unsafely in multiple locations. 3. the output of "grep -wr exec pfsense/src | grep 'rm -rf'" shows what looks like exploitable problems due to poor shell escaping. This isn't an audit or anything, btw. It's the result of a couple of minutes glancing over the code. I'm sure an audit would produce a lot more. Nick
Current thread:
- sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Ken Chase (May 05)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application amuse (May 05)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application g () 1337 io (May 05)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Mark Tinka (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application amuse (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Nick Hilliard (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Mel Beckman (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application amuse (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Mark Tinka (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Aris Lambrianidis (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Mark Tinka (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Mark Tinka (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Mel Beckman (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Keith Stokes (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application amuse (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Keith Stokes (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application g () 1337 io (May 05)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application Aris Lambrianidis (May 06)
- Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application amuse (May 05)