Custom OpenBSD 3.0 with IPFilter From Darren Reed 265
rjk191 writes: "Darren Reed, the author of IPFilter, has created his own release of OpenBSD which puts IPFilter back in. IPFilter was removed from OpenBSD 3.0 by the OpenBSD team due to license issues. See his newsgroup posting that announces it here." Here's the whole thread for some more information.
Happy to see this. (Score:1)
Re: ipfilter easier to use than netfilter/iptables (Score:1)
Personally, I find the pseudo-natural language rules a bit confusing, but it`s probably a matter of taste.
Also, I wasnt aware that the official OpenBSD features the (linux-only) netfilter packet-filter.
BTW, what is the current packet-filter in the official OpenBSD 3.0 release (as ipfilter is out) ?
Re: ipfilter easier to use than netfilter/iptables (Score:2, Informative)
It's simply called pf and it's custom to OpenBSD.
pf - packet filter details (Score:2, Informative)
router-firewall-workstation after running
2.6 - 2.9 and lemme tell ya, pf ROCKS
with less than 10 lines changed across 4 files in
/etc I was able to get the following configured
for my network:
-firewalling (enable pf in
4 rules in
-full nat (enable ip forwarding in
and put 1 line in
-full port forwarding with ip header rewriting (put
2 lines in
so simple, so powerful, and BUNDLED!
'nuff said
Re: ipfilter easier to use than netfilter/iptables (Score:3, Informative)
It's the file system speed improvements that really make an upgrade to OpenBSD 3.0 worthwhile, though..
Security still number one? (Score:4, Troll)
Yeah (Score:1)
It seems that it's a plain OpenBSD 3.0 with IPFilter integrated, somethin that you could do yourself but Darren is nice enough to provide a compiled version.
No worry there, it's still OpenBSD, the whole point of the OpenBSD philosophy is to permit derivative works.
Re:Security still number one? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Security still number one? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Security still number one? (Score:5, Informative)
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy, it is up to you to determine this for yourself. We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option.
I don't think that the layout of the filesystem itself (/,
The actual name would be under trademark, and I would imagine that someone else would be unable to use the trademark to distribute a derivative of OpenBSD. Linux is the name of the kernel for Linux distros, bsd is the name of OpenBSD's kernel. The use of Linux as a trademark should technically be approved by Linus or whomever manages that for him.
I guess this would be OpenBSDarren...
Re:Security still number one? (Score:3, Informative)
Stangely, OpenBSD does not appear to be registered with the US Patent Office (check in TESS [uspto.gov]). Note that this is unlike Linux, which is:
Re:Security still number one? (Score:4, Informative)
And since OpenBSD is based here in Canada, the above (NAL) summarized US rules don't necessarily apply, other than through treaties on Intellectual Property. It is not a registered trademark in Canada either, as you can check here. [ic.gc.ca]
Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've setup a firewall [daemonnews.org] with bridging and no IPs on OpenBSD 2.9. Now, I could migrate to 3.0 and don't change anything on the underlying code for the custom GUI.
Not that PF is bad - you just can't do everything together ;-)
cheers,
Rainer
Re:Good. (Score:1)
I thought pf was rules-compatable with ipf?
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Informative)
Now, I could migrate to 3.0 and don't change anything on the underlying code for the custom GUI.
You will have to change your rules. OpenBSD made several modifications to IPF that darren never included upstream (interface names in place of IP addresses, for example). I also recall some controversy involving patches to support ipf on the bridge. I don't know if those are supported either.
You're welcome to experiment I suppose. Good luck. But I'd strongly recommend not installing this straight onto your production system.
Ego dramma (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorta like the OpenSSH, there is an original version from the SSH company, but everyone just uses OpenSSH. I see this being their same strategy for IPF clone.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the reason FreeBSD can use it is that it uses an unmodified ipfilter. Ipfilter was originally written for FreeBSD, IIRC. But while FreeBSD uses ipfilter in userspace, OpenBSD always used a heavily modified form which lived in kernel space. The problem was that Darren and Theo got in a pissing match and Darren put a clause in his license that said he had to approve any release of ipfilter. Theo responded by dumping ipfilter, now Darren is trying to counter by creating his own OpenBSD.
While this is legal, the problem is that the whole point of OpenBSD is the security audtnig the OpenBSD team does. The version Darren is pushing is essentially a patched version of what they are putting out, but any security auditing of his patches is likely going to be done by him alone. I don't think this is a way to go, frankly.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:2, Informative)
Absolutely incorrect. Get your facts straight.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:2)
I've heard the same thing about ipfilter; that is, that it was developed for FreeBSD, for use in userspace, and was adopted by the OpenBSD team and subsequently modified to operate in kernelspace.
That is why I couldn't just get the OpenBSD 2.9 from FTP and install ipfilter from Darren Reed's site (to fix the traceroute bug). It requires quite a lot of patching to get it to work with OpenBSD.
So do you have any more information on _why_ the above poster was incorrect? I'm quite interested.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did you get that from?
The issue that the OpenBSD guys had with IPF was that the license wasn't 100% BSD compatible as it stood when they decided to ditch it. I can't recall exactly what the issue was, but there's historical posts in the misc@openbsd.org [geocrawler.com] mailing list. (Searching for Theo De Raadt and IPF should be enough - he's explained his position at least a half dozen times). Afterwards. Darren decided to change the license so that the other BSD's wouldn't ditch IPF in favor of PF too.
All in all, one of the things I respect most about the OpenBSD guys is how they do stick to their principles, as they did in the IPF fiasco.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:2, Interesting)
With the regards to the "design problems" someone else posted about earlier, IPF is designed to be a crossplatform package (we use it exclusively on Solaris here) and as such it will never be as taylored for OpenBSD as pf is.
I think that Theo, as good as he is for OpenBSD, would be even better if he now and then counted to ten before saying something. Having a clear vision and unwavering ideals is a good thing to have but a foul temper will only harm the cause.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:2, Interesting)
Which cause? Being nice and warm and fuzzy with everyone? Or putting out a solid secure OS? I think his temperament works just fine for the latter, he weeds out the chaff who think his goal should be the former.
Re:Ego dramma (Score:3, Interesting)
Theo just decided to hell with it and just announced that ipf is leaving OpenBSD. He never called anybody names or anything. he just sorta unexpectantly removed it.
and headlining todays issue of duh (Score:3, Flamebait)
next story please.
This release will include ISOs as well (Score:3, Troll)
Re:This release will include ISOs as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, I have to wonder how resourceful someone is who doesn't know how to find OpenBSD ISO's via Google.
This isn't a troll, but this strikes me as counter-productive to Open Source in general, and it seems even sillier that one needs to distribute an entire ISO for such a small package.
Remember- it was Darren who changed his license which forced the OpenBSD team to remove his packages from the distro.
Wrong and wrong (Score:5, Informative)
He's definately changed it.
The first version said "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
Everyone had assumed that use included modification. Darren got pissed at Theo and started claiming that it did not. To quote Darren at the time: "Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent." He claimed that this was not a change to the license, but it was certainly a change from the way everyone using it had thought it was to be read. This was what provoked OBSD to remove his package. If the other BSD teams were true to their principles they would have removed it too, at this point, and actually they might have if Darren hadn't lobbied them heavily and agreed to change itfor them. Which he eventually did. If he's still claiming that he never changed the license then he's just exposing himself as a shameless liar - the first case it sort of made sense to claim he wasn't *changing* the license but only clarifying (although he's on record earlier that it amounted to "public domain" - his words - which shows that he was really lying even then - his reinterpretation was definately novel even in his own mind, even if he wouldn't admit it. But the new license actually changes words in the license itself, it's not just a "clarification" by any stretch of the imagination. The license on the versions he's distributing now says "Redistribution and use, with or without modification, in source and binary forms, are permitted provided that this notice is preserved in its entirety and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors." It also has a viral clause prohibiting it's incorporation into anything under a different license, such as GPL or BSD. This was not a part of the original license.
For comparison:
The original license, for example from the ip_fil.c in NetBSD 1.5, is:
The complete LICENSE file, as included with NetBSD 1.5 and the original ip_fil3.4.17 source distribution, is:
Pretty much the same license, the second just has some disclaimers added. This was the license he first described as "public domain" (search for my comments on past articles on this and you should find a link to where he stated that" - and then "clarified" at a later date to prohibit modification.
Now, the license on the version he is distributing today, with an explicit allowance for modification, and the new viral clause:
Re:This release will include ISOs as well (Score:5, Informative)
I've lurked on the misc@openbsd mailing list, and seen what Darren says. He seems "shady" (best as I can describe it). He seems to do his best to piss people off, and whenever pf doesn't work as expected, he says "IPF does that". Even if the poster was using the wrong syntax.
The firewall age isn't an issue, it's infancy happened on the -current tree. I'm rather happy with pf, and will keep using it whenever possible.
Re:This release will include ISOs as well (Score:2, Informative)
Don't blame others, if you lack the clue to do things the right way.
Re:This release will include ISOs as well (Score:2)
psxndc
Transition to PF should be painless (Score:4, Informative)
The new Packet Filter' syntax is somewhat backwards-compatible with IPFilter, the most significant difference being that with PF you now must specify protocol when specifying ports, so for example if with IPF you had:
block in on fxp0 from any to any port = 137
with PF you have to change it to:
block in on fxp0 proto { udp, tcp } from any to any port = 137
And you place the default donfiguration in
Re:Transition to PF should be painless (Score:2, Informative)
still works.
so does
ext_if="fxp0"
block in no $ext_if from any to any port = 137
and does:
protocol_rules="proto { udp, tcp }"
ext_if="fxp0"
block in on $ext_if $protocol_rules from any to any port = 137
why stick with backwards compatible? (Score:2)
Why I love Open Source (Score:5, Funny)
You don't want to include my program with your distribution?
Fine, I'll just include your distribution with my program!
'nuff said!
Re:Why I love Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggested this years ago for netscape. (Score:3)
lot's of engineers for wine would have been nice, too, but bundling netscape, a bsd (or linux), and the (then) personal use version of staroffice, and they could have kicked a good chunk of the low-end clean out from under microsoft.
hawk
Re:I suggested this years ago for netscape. (Score:2)
Re:I suggested this years ago for netscape. (Score:2)
:)
Yes. Netscape 3 rarely crashed on linux. The separate windows (and lower memory requirements) were one of the reasons I continued using StarOffice 3 even into the 5.0 era.
It wouldn'thave been so much installing an OS to usethe browser, but starting with the OS in the first place and not having a need forwindows.
hawk.
Re:Why I love Open Source (Score:2)
Where did you come up with that bit of rubbish?
All he'd have had to do is make the source available for any modification he made to the kernel. He could still have created his own distribution.
Amusing (Score:5, Flamebait)
Ask again -> No respond. Darren coder supreme.
OpenBSD decide to make changes, but only in OpenBSD source tree. Darren hears, gets angry! Decides: "LICENSE NO ALLOW!"
Insert Flame War.
OpenBSD team decide to switch to different packet filter under BSD license. Because Project Goal: Every user should be able to make changes to source tree. IPF license bad!!
Darren try get back: says, NetBSD, FreeBSD allowed! MUAHAHAHAH!!!
Theo say: no care, pf much better than ipf!
Darren changes mind: changes license. But OpenBSD will not change back to ipf. Darren even much more bitter.
Darren so bitterbitter. Decides: I'LL GET BACK BY FORKING OPENBSD AND RELEASING MY OWN VERSION. HEHEHEHEHE.
Conclusion: Open source, closed minds.
I find this very amusing.
Parent is the best summary (Score:3, Informative)
You can read the original mix of hurt feelings, screams of piglethood, and resentment here [deadly.org]
PF vs IPF (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have a bias for one or the other (IPF vs PF), but will probably stick with PF since it's included in the default OBSD 3.0 installation.
Is there any reason why I should keep using IPF? Isn't it still included in the ports if I really needed it? Doesn't this sound like a political move?
Re:PF vs IPF (Score:2)
More like a political countermove.
I notice, however, that he isn't getting flamed for offering ISOs. Curious, that, since putting a link to ISOs in my sigline has gotten me flamed here at least a dozen times.
Re:PF vs IPF (Score:2)
True. I read through the Theo rant [slashdot.org] before and it seems like a lot more politics than I would care to deal with.
But the OS is pretty good, eh? ;^)
Re:PF vs IPF (Score:2)
Actually, I'm flaming him. Offering an OpenBSD with IPF is one thing, but offering bootable ISOs is another matter entirely. It's a direct attack on OpenBSD's revenue stream. Granted, the license has always allowed that, and relied on the goodwill of the users to buy the official product, rather than creating bootable ISOs. But Darren never offered them before his falling out with Theo, and starting to do so now really doesn't show him in the best light... At one point, I considered making bootable CDs myself, but decided that it wouldn't be in the best interests of the OpenBSD project (and hence, indirectly, myself) to do so.
IPFilter: Any advantages over pf? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm looking to put together a new organizational firewall soon, and am in the process of selling my boss on the idea of doing it on OpenBSD with pf. (His original preference had been to implement it on our Cisco routers, which strikes me as a loss for maintainability.) Prior to settling on OpenBSD, I'd looked into using IPFilter on Solaris or FreeBSD, but OpenBSD's reputation clinched it for me.
Nevertheless, I'm wondering: Am I missing something? Besides rule-for-rule compatibility with older IPFilter systems (which we don't have), is there any actual, concrete advantage of IPFilter over pf?
Re:IPFilter: Any advantages over pf? (Score:3, Interesting)
Free as in... fascism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, Darren, we have news for you: your packet filter is not "all that." IPtables and Rusty's Netfilter code has been kicking ipfilter's proverbial ass since the first release of Linux 2.4, both in terms of features and security. Linux has not had issues dealing with the simple cases [safermag.com] that have caused your firewall to fail. Theo de Raddt and the ipfw team have come up with far superior solutions to your product, and your attempted coup will hurt your market share even more.
Darren, listen to your users - change your license or perish.
df
Re:Free as in... fascism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that isn't true. there have been a number of issues with the way that iptables/netfilter in linux interacts with some systems. A number of problems related to timers in the state engine have come to light and do cause real problems for some systems. Also, 2.4 was relatively recent in history, so all the problems and issues with iptables/netfitler cannot be known yet. To assert otherwise is to ignore the history of software. All software has a hype cycle: The latest thing is always the best, then experience shows that it doesn't handle this or that right, followed by the disillusionment phase followed by the adopting another product that's in the hype phase. ipfilter is much farther along in this process and is maturing nicely. We have not had the history to know yet if iptables/netfilter will be the same.
If you don't believe me, go back and look at the press that each new Linux release gets. Then look at how people talk about that release 3-6 months later, and then 1-2 years later. It takes time for problems to be diagnoised and understood.
Re:Free as in... fascism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Political rhetoric aside, I'm curious about this. As someone with 5+ years of Linux experience who's now in the process of choosing a new organizational firewall, I've taken a long look at iptables. What I see is, well, a mess compared to either IPFilter or OpenBSD's pf.
I'm not talking about the raw feature set. I'm talking about the syntax for rules, and the maintainability of large rulesets. The iptables rule syntax is made up of numerous, disparate command-line options, and files of rules become increasingly hard to read and maintain. In contrast, IPFilter and pf have what seems to me to be a clear and easy-to-use rules language well-adapted to large files of rules. Here's a comparison, a rule I just tossed together, with the intent being "allow SSH sessions only from my internal hosts":
iptables :
iptables -A INPUT -s 10.11.0.0/16 -p tcp -o tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -o tcp --dport 22 -j DENY
pf:
block in proto tcp to any port ssh
pass in proto tcp from 10.11.0.0/16 to any port ssh keep state
Don't get me wrong -- iptables is certainly Good Enough to implement IP access rules for a single host, or to serve as a back-end for firewall toolkits such as the one Red Hat's added to their latest releases. But it's sure a surprise to someone who's spent some time on both when BSD comes up with a system that's both prettier and easier than Linux's.
Re:Free as in... fascism? (Score:2, Informative)
iptables --append firewall --source 10.11.0.0/16 --proto tcp --destination-port ssh --jump ACCEPT
iptables --append firewall --destination-port ssh --jump DROP*
This seems both readable and easy to follow to me. I maintain a large and (necessarily) complex firewall using iptables (and DNAT, SNAT, mark-based routing, etc.) I've never found it to be especially difficult to follow the config files, nor awkward to read.
I don't deny things could be just as simple as pf, possibly even easier, but I don't think complexity of configuration is a valid criticism of iptables. On the contrary, I'd have to say I find the example you gave a little counter-intuitive - it's necessary to think for a little too long about whether that's "to any" or "to any port". That's probably just me, though - in any event, this post hopefully makes it clear that the difference between the two is far more a matter of personal taste / how accustomed each person is to the syntax - neither of the syntaxes are (IMHO) intrinsically better.
* The second line's unnecessary if your input/forward chain policy is 'DROP', which would be the case for most sane firewalls I can think of...
Re:Free as in... fascism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly!
A standard slashdot argument is: "I use XYZ and it is easier/better than ABC."
The reason that it's "easier/better" is that you're more familiar with it. People make judgements based on what they have experience with.
Sure, I think that BSD is better than Linux. I think that the *BSDs firewall syntax is better than the Linux firewall syntax. I think that the *BSD ports/package system rocks compared to any Linux solution (yes, even apt). But I think these things because I use *BSD all of the time! If I used Linux all of the time, I'd look at BSD and say, "What are these stupid disk slice things? What is this disklabel crap? Can't I just make some partitions and go?"
You can draw examples from every facet of the computer world on this subject. Emacs and vi, anyone? Perl versus Python? C++ versus Java? Generally, "better" means "the thing that I know how to use the best."
Some things have a more difficult learning curve than others -- does that make them better? Maybe; but that shouldn't be your only criteria for judging.
We're more prone to see things as "better" when we've invested time in learning them. And when we do compare things, we often use a suboptimal example for the thing that we don't know well -- because we don't know it well.
Re:Free as in... fascism? (Score:2)
that should be the first concern. If the one that is least intuitive provides more reliable secutity, then go with it and write yourself a script take input in a way thats intuitive to you, and spits it out in the correct format.
of course, IF all things are equall, the go with the one thats easier to set up and maintain.
Picking a Firewall (was: Free as in... fascism?) (Score:2)
Believe me, there are other measures involved in picking a firewall besides its security (where there are a lot of decent entries) and its cost in terms of latency. (It isn't likely to hit bandwidth unless it's overloaded, btw.) The factors that I see involved in picking firewall kit shake out into two categories: technical and social, as follows.
Technical factors:
Social factors:
The next best thing to "You can hire someone with thus-and-so certification, and you're guaranteed they can write new rules for this right away" is something like "This system is so straightforward that anyone who knows Unix can pick it up in an hour and write new rules for it. Oh, and here's the complete documentation -- and I can assure you that there are ...
I'm not saying OpenBSD is the only system that can meet these goals. (After all, I'm still waiting on the OpenBSD 3.0 CD to show up so I can set up a testbed to prove it's a better choice than more Cisco gear.) I'm saying it's not quite as easy as "pick whatever works and doesn't eat the network, and wing the rest."
dfeldman does not understand. (Score:2)
server# pwd
/usr/src/contrib/ipfilter
server# cat IPFILTER.LICENCE
Copyright (C) 1993-2001 by Darren Reed.
The author accepts no responsibility for the use of this software and
provides it on an ``as is'' basis without express or implied warranty.
Redistribution and use, with or without modification, in source and binary
forms, are permitted provided that this notice is preserved in its entirety
and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
copied, in part or in whole, and put under another distribution licence
[including the GNU Public Licence.]
There is the licence. Now, what part of with or without modification == "he cannot stand to give the public the right to modify" ?
Oh, thats right. This is slashdot. "Let not facts get in the way of promoting all things Linux." From your post "IPtables and Rusty's Netfilter code has been kicking ipfilter's proverbial ass since the first release of Linux 2.4," All that 'ass kicking' must be why the 2.4 series is The kernel of pain [slashdot.org] Your anger is that the fine code of IPFilter can't be GPLed is all.
Oh Great. Not another story... (Score:1)
In the immortal words of some character from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail, "No, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion!
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..."
childish acts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just create a port for OpenBSD ?
It's the same technology.... (Score:2)
I use it all the time. No unsecure sockets!
--SC
Who would use this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt there will be more than a handful of IPF users once they've tried OpenBSD PF.
While I'm on the subject, this kind of action on the part of Darren really justifies Theo's decision to dropped IPF in the first place. He used to matter, but now he's just a slightly noisy fly on the wall.
Re:Who would use this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who would use this? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've used IPF since 2.6 and IMHO it wasn't nearly easy enough to use. Each line of the file is simple, but managing conceptual changes to your firewall is a royal pain in the Perl script. So far I've just read some of the new PF documentation and skimmed the PF list from time to time. I have no doubts that PF will mature rapidly, if it isn't already. I can't believe some of the new changes to the syntax weren't made years ago.
I've been working on the IP protocol stack for a couple of years, mainly looking at some of the latency problems with TCP/IP in signal contention networks (aka cell phones). TCP was designed to handle path contention networks and it doesn't handle signal contention at all well. The packet structure of IP is not rocket science. The TCP/IP stack is a much worse beast than what PF requires, especially if you add in all the IPv6 changes (substantial). I was reading this code yesterday. It's written clearly enough, yet hard to analyse case by case.
What matters for the new PF implementation is making correct syscalls and handling all the error returns correctly. The OpenBSD people know all the pitfalls from years of fixing other's mistakes. If you get the syscalls right, the remaining stability issue is largely semantic. The semantics are easily demonstrated by building rulesets that work.
The third area of concern are the efficiency tricks. I think will take another iteration at least to perfect. This area was probably neglected while the effort focussed on functionality, stability, and correctness. Try not to forget that the OpenBSD people have complete access to the IPF source code to guide them through the tricky spots.
Theo doesn't control OpenBSD, he just controls one tree. I wasn't at all unhappy that OpenBSD chose to write PF from scratch. They've done a good job on OpenSSH, which I regard as a more challenging problem. I also regard IPv6 integration as more challenging the PF. IPv6 and IPsec are a scary beast.
My next task is to start playing with new PF on all the new 3.0 boxes I've just configured. I'm not expecting any anguish. If my expectations are off base, I'll post again eating humble pie. I'm not saving my appetite, I don't think I'll need it.
Re:Who would use this? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are already examples of the reverse - namely:
1) scrubbing
2) variables
3) listed elements allowing one line to do what takes many lines in IPF
4) inbound and outbound rules on bridges
Politics, flamefest, and egos aside, I simply believe PF is technically superior - based on the above things that PF can do that IPF can't - in addition to the common features of both - until proven otherwise.
Re:Who would use this? (Score:2)
This is not the Linux world... Everything is extensively tested by a huge number of people before the release even takes place. That's the problem with releasing a new kernel every week, you can't even get close to OpenBSD's 6 MONTHS of extensive testing.
As for XP, it's nearly as old as BSD itself. XP is based on the same underlying system as Windows NT 3.XX. So don't hold your breath, it's not getting any better.
ISO's (Score:3, Interesting)
How the hell hard can it be to do the following?
mkdir ~/obsd30
cd ~/obsd30
[use favorite method of obtaining all files from OBSD Mirror]
cd
mkisofs -b floppy30.fs -c boot.catalog -R -o obsd.iso obsd30
cdrecord [your options] obsd30.iso
(NOTE: I did that mkisofs off the top of my head so it's very likely wrong, but it's damn close.)
I buy OBSD CD's to support the project, but I'm not waiting for them to arrive when the files are there for FTP.
I just replaced a Redhat/ipfilter box (My home router) with an OpenBSD 3.0 box, my first. So I've got no legacy baggage.
License Bigots bore me to tears. Darren reminds me of Dan Bernstein with his "My way or the highway" mentality. The QMail lists are half full of people bitching about the license, and it's why I left qmail for Postfix a long while ago (and never looked back. If djbdns had a competitor, I'd be Bernstein free.)
If the whole point of using OpenBSD is to use something audited by the OBSD team, then the concept of using any distribution other than the one I get from ftp.OpenBSD.org is ludicrous.
Darren Reed's latest license for IPFilter (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright (C) 1993-2002 by Darren Reed.
The author accepts no responsibility for the use of this software and
provides it on an ``as is'' basis without express or implied warranty.
Redistribution and use, with or without modification, in source and binary
forms, are permitted provided that this notice is preserved in its entirety
and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
copied, in part or in whole, and put under another distribution licence
[including the GNU Public Licence.]
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
I hate legalese, don't you ?
Ironic that this relatively short license which is somewhat BSD style is actually copyleft or "viral" in nature. Look closely at the section before the diclaimer boiler-plate. Maybe it should be called the DPL (Darren Public License) BSD advocates typically rant on and on about how GPL is terrible the way it contaminates software, and yet somehow this license is considered OK?
not "as viral" (Score:2)
This lets the two pieces, mix, match,mate, link, whatever without trying to control the output.
hawk
"derivative of this code" (Score:2)
Either both or neither let you mix, match, mate or link.
It might be less restrictive than what the FSF claim of the GPL, but in that case it is becasue FSF is wrong about the GPL.
Re:"derivative of this code" (Score:2)
I went deeply into the GPL a couple of years ago for LyX. I still couldn't quite figure out exactly what it meant (and I *am* a lawyer, and also hold a Ph.D. in economics & statistics . .
I *am* sure that it doesn't say what the FSF claims--and now that you mention it, the static linking bit is FSF rather than GPL, isn't it?
Darren's doesn't seem to have a distributable-as-a-whole under the licence requirement, however.
hawk, esq.
Re:not "as viral" (Score:2)
no, of course not.
also "link to", and in certain circumstances, "distribute with."
hawk
A clarification (Score:2)
BSD advocates typically rant on and on about how GPL is terrible the way it contaminates software, and yet somehow this license is considered OK?
In that sense, the BSD is just as viral as the GPL. What they whine about is different:
BSDites are under the illusion that they may one day want to close access to the source and become the next SUN. (This is exactly what Bill Joy did)
They feel that if they use the GPL they wont be able to commercialize in the microsoft sense, which is true unless they own all contributions.
Although they make alot of good server and security code, the BSD programmers have a really uptight and clannish community.
reply to anon coward post: (Score:2)
Bollocks. Is it so hard to understand that we're just giving away our code? No agenda, we just want people to use it with the only condition being that our names remain on the source?
The point at hand was not "why choose the BSD", but rather "why are BSDer's typically so GPL hostile?"
Ive got nothing against someone slapping a BSD on a piece of good code- that is something to be admired. Especially because I can combine it with GPL'd source and distribute the product.
What im talking about is things like the SSLeay licence: a BSD license with a nasty clause saying that it cannot be combined with anything GPL as a special (annoying) tack on. (which remains in openssl till today)
The above may explain the creation of the GNUtls project to an extent, and thats the kind of thing Im talking about.
Re:reply to anon coward post: (Score:2)
'cuz GPL advocates love to trumpet how GPLed software is so free, when its viral nature puts restrictions on that freedom, making it less free than BSD licensed software. Nobody wants to catch a nasty virus... Public domain is more free than BSD, which is more free than GPL.
why theo being a prick is a good thing (tm)... (Score:3, Insightful)
psxndc
I just installed OpenBSD 3.0 yesterday.... (Score:5, Informative)
On the whole, from what I can see, the new pf really is better. The syntax is similar to the old (ie, very human-readable), and in some cases makes a bit more sense. I had a simple firewall up, starting from bare metal, in one hour, fifteen minutes, and that included the time to take the box apart to install a second NIC. (but not reassemble the case
I've also been working with iptables at work, as we use Linux there. I very much prefer pf; it's much cleaner and better-designed. One caveat: by default, the rules are 'backwards'. Instead of 'match first rule', pf (and also ipfilter) makes decisions on the LAST matching rule. Fortunately, you can short circuit this logic by using the 'quick' keyword. This restores the 'first match' logic that I prefer. The 'last match' method seems both backwards and harder to maintain.
Honestly, I can't imagine why you'd want OpenBSD with ipfilter anymore; the new packet filter is better than the old one, a little easier to set up, and integrated in the core OS. The one argument I'd have for ipfilter is that it's more mature and tested. However, from what I can see, pf is a better solution. Better still, it's written by paranoid security nuts... I imagine the shakedown period on pf will be much much shorter than with most new code.
I must admit that I had some trepidation about the transition, as I liked ipfilter very much. I'm pleased to report that the replacement appears better than the original.
I'm sticking with 2.9, but only for a little while (Score:3, Interesting)
TdR's imprimatur is on an -operating system-. That imprimatur has value: Theo sells what Darren is giving away. Darren's imprimatur is on a wonderful -component-. And it takes the OS I value to run whatever packet filter is used. I'm not good enough to evaluate what Darren might have changed to make his distro work, so my choices are 1) get an OS with unknown provenance, with at least one known good component, from Darren; 2) get one with known provenance, but a less-proven packet filter, from Theo; 3) stick with 2.9+ipf (which was my choice).
I happen to think the whole ipf license 'clarification' issue was slimy, and Sturm und Drang aside, I have to admire TdR for sticking to principle and having the guts to go with a new packet filter. But I'll wait to upgrade until pf matures a bit.
This is a shame for Opensource (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the moral of the story is that, all Opensource developer should bond more together and remember our real goal for opensourcing. There may be slight difference in opinion but we should get over the difference and try to produce the best software with minimal effort.
By writing separate PF, OpenBSD team has to spend extra time to re-code the new PF and going through the code audit, testing....
Being a security consultant, I will still recommend OpenBSD as FW platform, but I would wait a bit before PF, simply for the need for enough track record to be made. Let time to prove this firewall, so to speak.
Re:This is a shame for Opensource (Score:3, Interesting)
I went back and read the mailing list on both IPF and OpenBSD. There are some elements that are childish, one guy suddenly change his mind about his work and then another keep bashing and won't let IPF re-unit with OpenBSD even after some modification to the license.
Yes, there were lots of childish comments. However, doing a code-weighted-average in my head, it seemed like the OpenBSD group was pretty calm and considered about the whole thing. Not that I'm completely unbiased, I guess.
A more important point is that aside from the fact that pf was pretty much a fait acompli when Darren changed his license, Theo had a very good reason for not going back to ipf - the license change is still not open enough for OpenBSD to include ipf in the kernel.
Theo et al want OpenBSD to be usable by anyone for anything, which means that Darren's, "you can't change the license terms," clause is still a problem. (See item #2 on OpenBSD's goals [openbsd.org] page.) As far as Theo is concerned you are fully welcome to fork OpenBSD (along with pf) and license your version under the GPL, if that is your desire.
If you don't share or value that goal, fine. But criticising Theo and/or OpenBSD for maintaining these goals is a little harsh.
Re:This is a shame for Opensource (Score:2)
the license
I'd leave your troll alone, except for the upmodding it has received from some idiot.
*NOTHING* prevents you from downloading IPF and compiling it into OpenBSD. There are *MANY* packages that aren't a part of the distribution. There are even more source tarballs that aren't part of the distribution. You want it, add it. What is so hard to understand about this?
I guess the moral of the story is that, all Opensource developer should bond more together and remember our real goal for opensourcing.
And OpenBSD believes in that. If one looks at the license of IPF, one realizes Darren doesn't believe in that in regards to his changing license on IPF (changing from vague to strict to loose).
By writing separate PF, OpenBSD team has to spend extra time to re-code the new PF and going through the code audit, testing....
And that's a bad thing? Should software only go through one audit?
As I mentioned in a prior message, PF adds some new features (which I greatly appreciate) that I didn't have with IPF.
Being a security consultant
Welcome to the
but I would wait a bit before PF
What's a bit? How long is long enough? How do you know someone didn't hack Darren's distribution? Have you run MD5 sums on all files in Darren's release to make sure that except for his changes, the code is still true OpenBSD? Did you audit his source code? How do you know he didn't inadvertantly introduce a flaw into OpenBSD?
Theo's legendary patience (Score:5, Funny)
Serious conspiracy. (Score:2)
This particular conflict concerning the fine OpenBSD operating system is not as simple as it seems at first glance. As a matter of fact, I believe this is a huge conspiracy by Darren Reed and his organization to eventually distribute an operating system nearly identical to OpenBSD, but with one slight modification: Darren Reed's version will include IPFilter.
A little more investigation on your part will reveal that this is more or less what's actually going on, rather than what we're being told.
I'm sticking with Theo and the boys. (Score:2)
If Darren Reed hadn't been such a stubborn cock and lightened up on his licensing then perhaps ipf would still be part of the OpenBSD install.
It has likely taken him way longer to set up his own installer and layout than if he had just grown up and listened to reason.
No thanks, I'm sticking with the official OpenBSD CD sets.
hrm.. does Reed's come with a cool music track like OpenBSD 3.0 had on CD 2?
Go Theo!
Re:I'm sticking with Theo and the boys. (Score:2, Interesting)
s/Darren Reed/Theo de Raadt/
a little courtesy on both sides could've gone a long way. Theo truly brings out the best and worst in people.
Great. I know what is coming next.... (Score:2, Funny)
# dmesg|more
OpenBSD 3.0 (I_HATE_THEO!!!) #1: Thu Oct 18 14:48:27 MDT 2001
djb@cr.yp.to:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/I_HATE_THEO!!
Where will the insanity stop?
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:1)
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think Theo will have a problem with that.. (Score:1)
The whole point of OpenBSD being permitting any derivative work, something that the IPFilter licence don't provide (anti-GPL clause, not necessary a bad thing but not as free as the BSD licence).
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:1)
please lay off the crack smoking (Score:5, Informative)
Note to impressionable youngsters: there is no basis in fact for this statement.
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:4, Informative)
If what I have read onthe mailing lists is any indication, it is unlikely Theo will lose control (well, of teh project anyway :) ). Most seemed to agree that this kind of stunt is exactly what Darren was trying to pull when he put the offending clause in the license in the first place. And regardless of how people feel, it seems the "Official" OpenBSD is still more trusted.
NetBSD [netbsd.org] out of business? What? Are you smoking Moderator crack, Mr. Troll? Besides, Theo was locked out of the NetBSD project and waited almost a year (holding the only Sparc port BTW) before coming out with OpenBSD. It is not the same situation.
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the paranoid survive and all that.
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:2)
Designed. Tested. Audited. Coded. Used. Abused.
Only the paranoid stand a chance.
You find one bug. You get all his friends and relations.
Re:Getting a taste of his own medicine (Score:2, Funny)
Darren Reed wresting control of OpenBSD from Theo? Are you serious? Did Theo wrest control of NetBSD from whomever? No, he just started his own BSD. From what I can tell, NetBSD is chugging along just fine. Darren can do the same, create "OpenBiggerEgo" or something; if it ends up better, great.
Re:OpenBSD ISO (Score:2, Informative)
you *can* distribute OpenBSD however you like.
The original OpenBSD CD *layout* is Copyrighted by Theo.
Nothing stops anyone from downloading everything off of the FTP servers, and creating your own ISO image.
Re:OpenBSD ISO (Score:2)
Anybody remember the brouhaha over openssh.org last year?
Re:OpenBSD ISO (Score:2, Informative)
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy, it is up to you to determine this for yourself. We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option.
I guess if you want to distribute an ISO you need to make sure you build it yourself and make sure that it is different from the CD-ROM's.
I think it's kind of silly to say that the layout is copyrighted, but no sillier than Amazon having a patent on "one-click" shopping...possibly less.
It's a shame that Theo has to resort to this kind of thing to get people who are using the OS to actually buck up a few dollars for CDs.
Re:OpenBSD ISO (Score:2)
I can see why you'd think that. Because after all, the official FAQ says you can, and the discussion comes up on Slashdot about once a month in some other story, so of course you'd think it wasn't allowed.
WTF moderated that up?
Re:*BSD is dying (Score:2, Funny)
And since he was so late today, I was actually concerned that he was the one who had died, rather than BSD.
Re:Maybe I just don't understand... (Score:2)
He did, but not until Theo's group had almost completed the replacement pf. See the "Amusing" post above for a pretty good summary.
It seems silly that the whole thing has gone this far in the first place.
I think it's more sad than amusing, but silly's a good description too. In (supposedly) adults.
??? (Score:2)
What's wrong with lots of distributions? Seems like a good idea to me. People use whichever one they want. You trust Theo, you use OppenBSD, you prefer someone else, you use another version. Isn't that what OpenSource is about? Isn't what people like about BSD over Linux that you're even allowed to close the source? (I don't think that's such a good idea, but I don't use it, so that's fair.)
Is there some reason that there shouldn't be multiple distributions? Some will be more popular, others will slowly fade. Perhaps all will, but there's certainly a better chance if there are multiple sources.
The only thing that's too bad about this is the acrimony. Pity. But then I've known people who enjoyed that. I don't know the participants, but judging from the commentary, these might be some of them. In which case no problem.
Are you worried about what the newspapers will say? I can almost guarantee that they'll totally ignore it.
.