Which are the best firewall software?

[aleunix]

Which are the best firewall software?
I think is Pf.

Note:
Also i have add the linux firewall.

[ephemera]

i like ipf (http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon/) its nice and simple.

[BSDfan666]

s/are/is

Anyway, I like pf(4).. one can easily turn an old system into a very efficient firewall with OpenBSD+pf.

[mfaridi]

I like PF too , because I think it is very easy than IPTABLES

[halber_mensch]

iptables has a confusing syntax to me, and it's overly complicated. pf actually has a well defined language for declaring firewall rules that's pretty intuitive.

addendum:
pf's in-kernel NAT also sets it apart from ipfw with its less reliable userland NAT daemon

[stukov]

PF for it's syntax and simplicity over iptables.

[lvlamb]

None! d/software/
In OpenBSD, packet filtering takes place in the kernel.

[BSDfan666]

Originally Posted by lvlamb

None! d/software/
In OpenBSD, packet filtering takes place in the kernel.

The kernel is software, as much as we wish it was wetware compatible.

OpenBSD's pf is a OSI layer 2 firewall, unlike the "software firewalls" in the Windows world..

[anomie]

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

OpenBSD's pf is a OSI layer 2 firewall...

FWIW, ipfw and iptables can both filter at layer 2 as well.

I still voted for pf. It is syntactically easier, IMO.

[BSDfan666]

Originally Posted by anomie

FWIW, ipfw and iptables can both filter at layer 2 as well.

I still voted for pf. It is syntactically easier, IMO.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.

[TerryP]

pf because it's the easiest way I've ever been able to configure such things.


The configuration file has a language of it's own that is nice and neat -- which I like. I especially love the good section in the manual that outlines the pf.conf syntax in Backus–Naur Form (BNF), well once I figured out how to read BNF anyway :\


Not to mention it runs on the two operating systems I use most, FreeBSD and OpenBSD :-)

[hamba]

I'm for pf all the way.

Its easy to read and understand, has build in nat, works perfectly on load balancing and I can route traffic to where I want them to go.

[marcolino]

pf, because OpenBSD is the gold standard for open-source firewalls.

[aleunix]

I like especially pf for some unique advanced features.

About iptables starting from ubuntu hardy has been implemented, in part, a system similar to pf to make the firewall more simple and powerful.

I would like that the pf firewall became the default standard for all platforms bsd.

Note:
I think the apple use ipfw.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by halber_mensch

iptables has a confusing syntax to me, and it's overly complicated. pf actually has a well defined language for declaring firewall rules that's pretty intuitive.

addendum:
pf's in-kernel NAT also sets it apart from ipfw with its less reliable userland NAT daemon

ipfw(8) in FreeBSD 7+ includes in-kernel NAT. See the nat keyword in the man page. It's not as intuitive as pf's, but it's there.

[TerryP]

Wow, this is a land slide lol

[ephemera]

if somebody could realistically compare ipfw and pf (or even ipf) in terms of features and capabilities that would be helpful.

[revzalot]

I, too, am an advocate for pf but I have to learn iptables for customer's firewall. At first the iptables syntax was confusing but I'm finding it similar to pf syntax. I think Openbsd/pf has the edge in opensource firewall due to CARP/pfsync allowing for redundancy. I'm currently checking this cool IDS called fwsnort that works well with iptables. Has anyone played with this and care to share your experiences. Thanks.

[mish]

Another vote for pf. Power, features, ease.

[fbsduser]

ufw
ipfw
pf