Branches
Releases
|
Version
|
Focus
|
Date
|
|
2.0 RC1
|
Minor bugfixes |
22-Nov-2003 21:11 |
|
2.0 beta7
|
Minor bugfixes |
24-Oct-2003 20:27 |
|
2.0 beta 6
|
Major bugfixes |
25-Sep-2003 08:41 |
|
2.0 beta 5
|
Minor feature enhancements |
02-Jul-2003 17:50 |
|
2.0 beta 4
|
Major feature enhancements |
24-Jan-2003 11:03 |
Comments
[»]
Ranged Port Forwardning
by eni - Aug 2nd 2003 10:14:52
When will smoothwall suport ranged port forwardning like IPCop?
From IPCop Faq:
Other things to note:
We now support the GRE protocol
You can have port ranges and wildcards:
Valid wildcards are:
* which translates to 1-65535
85-* which translates into 85-65535
*-500 which translates into 1-500
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Ranged Port Forwardning
by neuro - Sep 25th 2003 02:42:39
> When will smoothwall suport ranged port
> forwardning like IPCop?
It's in 2.0 beta6 "voyager"! :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
so far so good.
by Mr_Hate - May 16th 2003 10:46:22
I am no expert but so far I see no real problem with this
product.
I use the beta mallard version and it seems decent
enough.
It's easy to use and pretty flexible. There may be better
out there but this works for me.
I just wish I could get it to interface with powerd so as to
do a clean shutdown when the UPS says to do so.
With Smoothwall and iptables running on all the boxes
inside of smoothwall, I feel fairly secure.
But then again, I'm no expert. I've asked for no support
yet, I just fumble my way through in the dark...
My life is RTFM..
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Unsecure Defaults
by Tom - Dec 31st 2001 14:48:51
The german computer magazine c't (http://www.heise.de) has tested this
software.
What they found out is a shame for a security product:
passwords for ppp are world-readable, the system passwords are
world-readable too, because they don't use shadow-passwords. The cgi's
which are used to configure the firewall are unsecure (they don't validate
user input).
But the most important result is, that the developers of SmoothWall did
not response on the emails they got from the testers, or if they responded,
they replied "it is not important"...
Other people might be interested in this.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Unsecure Defaults
by neuro - Jan 12th 2002 21:57:19
> The german computer magazine c't
> (http://www.heise.de) has tested this
> software. [...]
you might be interested in the fact that the journalist has reviewed his
article in retrospect and has agreed to retract it and any responses he has
issued about it.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Great Support - ThankYou SmoothWall
by AdamRetter - Oct 24th 2002 09:27:57
What is all this rubbish about bad support???
Okay - There are two versions of SmoothWall, with a website for each
one.
1. SmoothWall GPL (Free Version) - www.SmoothWall.org
2. SmoothWall CE (Corporate Edition - not free, but dammn cheap). -
www.SmoothWall.co.uk
I was looking for a firewall for our non-profit making organisation and
came across SmoothWall GPL - we did some trials with it and were very
pleased and able to find any answers we needed on the mailing list.
We found it to be as secure as any other commercial product which we
compared it against and we tried a few I can tell you.
We then decided that SmoothWall CE would be our final decision as we
needed some extra functionality that was not available in SmoothWall GPL -
namely the addon modules for proxy filtering etc.
We have a very unique network setup at our company involving routing two
seperate sets of WAN network addresses onto one set of DMZ/LAN network
addresses. Smoothwall can be configured to do this, due to its flexibility
but not without a little tweaking behind the scenes.
Richard and Laurence at SmoothWall were key to the deployment of our
SmoothWall CE Firewall and helped us by configuring it remotely. The
understood our needs perfectly and were most helpful and polite at all
times.
I would have no problem it recommending this Product to anyone (which I
have done many times). Again thanks SmoothWall.
Adam Retter
adam@cosmic.org.uk
Project COSMIC - www.cosmic.org.uk
[reply]
[top]
|
