Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Ducky BUNG]

I'm older than all of you, and am perfectly convinced that thinker9 is
my ex-wife.

D


On 10/10/2013 07:00 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Paul Mather  > wrote:
>
>>   I first started using mailing lists back in the mid/late 1980s,
>
> You're not the only one.  :-)
>
> I too was entertained by the n00b trying to tell grandpa how to use email.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Paul Mather  wrote:

>   I first started using mailing lists back in the mid/late 1980s,

You’re not the only one.  :-)

I too was entertained by the n00b trying to tell grandpa how to use email.

Jim

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hi Paul.

On 2013-10-10 18:42, Paul Mather wrote:

Thank you for the valuable information about how to use mailing lists.


You are welcome! ;-)

I first started using mailing lists back in the mid/late 1980s, on the 
JANET network (British academic network)---back when the Internet was 
made up of networks like ARPA, BITNET, UUCP, and the likes and (in my 
case) you needed to know the gateway machines that would let you reach 
those networks and had to incorporate that routing into the recipients 
e-mail address.


I love it when users try to show off with what internet dinosaurs their 
are, as soon as someone tries to teach them how to do something better..
Well, I am an Internet Dinosaur, too, with quite a comparable track 
record as you, so I am not all to impressed ;-)


 I suspect "those people" you mention above actually know how to use a 
mailing list properly.  I know I do.


Well, as it seems, most readers here *may know* how it should be done, 
but yet *don't do* it correctly, since it has shown that most users do 
just read all incoming mail unsorted and not threaded.
While anybody has the right to do so - no one has the right to complain 
afterwards about drowning in mail that does not concern him. But 
awkwardly enough many users did complain. And I will not accept them 
blaming me for not using their mail readers correctly.


 I also know the value of good S/N ratio on technically-focused 
mailing lists.


Every user will consider different things to be noise. I do not consider 
this thread to be noise - at all. You do. Just read another thread that 
appeals you more?


Maybe if we can establish that, we can finally wrap up this thread 
as far as pfSense is concerned and get back to a pfSense-focused 
mailing list.


You can switch *right at this very moment* to a discussion thread 
that is of more interest for you and there you go!


Of course, you're right, and that is wise counsel


It would have been a wise sentence, if it would have stopped here ;-)

because it reminds me of one of the golden rules of mailing lists: 
unwelcome threads persist only so long as people reply to them.  (This 
is sometimes better known by the more insulting adage: "Please don't 
feed the trolls!"  I'm loathe to employ that, though.)  I thought I 
was making a reasonable point, but it seems as far as I'm concerned, 
this thread has passed the point of reasonableness.


FACK! The only difference is, that you consider me to be the troll 
(maybe because I backtalk without hesitation to those who try to muzzle 
and censor me?) - while I consider those to be the trolls, who do not 
contribute anything of value to the discussion but plainly interfere in 
this thread and bully the others to stop discussing about the topic, 
because they claim that it bores them - instead of just walking away.


 I'll leave it to you and your fellow concerned list members to 
continue mulling it over, and, in your case, to continue teaching your 
grandma to suck eggs when it comes to Netiquette. :-)


Thanks so much ;-)

As far as Netiquette is concerned, I am surprised how many of those 
"computer geeks" that participate at this mailing list are clueless 
about Netiquette, and the basic usage of mail readers, etc.
Take for an example how many postings are not quoting correctly, but 
have "text on top - full quote below" which is a no-go in newsgroups and 
mailing lists...



Cheers,
Paul.


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Paul Mather]

On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> On 2013-10-10 16:52, Paul Mather wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Giles Coochey  wrote:
>> 
>>> *BLINK!*
>>> 
>>> Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial question, 
>>> and trying to query very valid points are now leading me to seriously 
>>> reconsider the potential risk I have in continuing to use pfsense as a 
>>> security tool.
>> 
>> Some people value the S/N ratio of mailing lists.  I believe the people 
>> asking for the discussion to be moved elsewhere are motivated by that.
> 
> Those people should just learn how to use a mailing list properly, before 
> using one. A mailing list is *not* just "I enter my daily use email address 
> somewhere and receive emails".
> For participating properly at a mailing list you need a proper mail reader 
> that is able to sort mail into conversation threads 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading).
> Then you go and pick the threads that interest you and read them. And you 
> ignore those, who do not interest you.
> Additionally it is advised to use an email address only for reading mailing 
> lists.

Thank you for the valuable information about how to use mailing lists.  I first 
started using mailing lists back in the mid/late 1980s, on the JANET network 
(British academic network)---back when the Internet was made up of networks 
like ARPA, BITNET, UUCP, and the likes and (in my case) you needed to know the 
gateway machines that would let you reach those networks and had to incorporate 
that routing into the recipients e-mail address.  I suspect "those people" you 
mention above actually know how to use a mailing list properly.  I know I do.  
I also know the value of good S/N ratio on technically-focused mailing lists.

>> Maybe if we can establish that, we can finally wrap up this thread as far as 
>> pfSense is concerned and get back to a pfSense-focused mailing list.
> 
> You can switch *right at this very moment* to a discussion thread that is of 
> more interest for you and there you go!


Of course, you're right, and that is wise counsel because it reminds me of one 
of the golden rules of mailing lists: unwelcome threads persist only so long as 
people reply to them.  (This is sometimes better known by the more insulting 
adage: "Please don't feed the trolls!"  I'm loathe to employ that, though.)  I 
thought I was making a reasonable point, but it seems as far as I'm concerned, 
this thread has passed the point of reasonableness.  I'll leave it to you and 
your fellow concerned list members to continue mulling it over, and, in your 
case, to continue teaching your grandma to suck eggs when it comes to 
Netiquette. :-)

Cheers,

Paul.___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-10 16:52, Paul Mather wrote:
On Oct 10, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Giles Coochey > wrote:



*BLINK!*

Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial 
question, and trying to query very valid points are now leading me to 
seriously reconsider the potential risk I have in continuing to use 
pfsense as a security tool.


Some people value the S/N ratio of mailing lists.  I believe the 
people asking for the discussion to be moved elsewhere are motivated 
by that.


Those people should just learn how to use a mailing list properly, 
before using one. A mailing list is *not* just "I enter my daily use 
email address somewhere and receive emails".
For participating properly at a mailing list you need a proper mail 
reader that is able to sort mail into conversation threads 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading).
Then you go and pick the threads that interest you and read them. And 
you ignore those, who do not interest you.
Additionally it is advised to use an email address only for reading 
mailing lists.


Of course anyone can use a mailing list as he desires, e.g. by just 
subscribing to a mailing list with his daily use email address and then 
get his daily use email inbox spammed with tons of unsorted and 
un-threaded email about all sorts of discussion topics that are of no 
interest to him. Everyone's own choice! But please: Those people should 
not complain about receiving tons of email that do not interest them. 
And of course they can't tell others to talk only about topics that are 
of their own interest, that is ridiculous. Full stop.


The original poster in this thread asked for a direct answer to a 
straightforward question and he got it, yet still he continues to 
pursue this thread.  To what end?


E, as long as a wish?! There is no quota on how long any member of 
this list is allowed to discuss a topic, is there? If you are not 
interested, just do not read this THREAD. You don't use a conversation 
threaded email reader to participate to a mailing list? Not my problem, 
sorry. Go use one. See above.


 People are outraged at the NSA revelations, but the pfSense mailing 
list is not the appropriate place to be outraged at that.


Sorry, this is not up to you to judge. I think that my question is very 
well related to pfSense and thus the mailing lists of pfSense is the 
right place to do so. And again: If you are not interested in this 
thread, DO NOT READ it. So simple actually?!


Maybe if we can establish that, we can finally wrap up this thread as 
far as pfSense is concerned and get back to a pfSense-focused mailing 
list.


You can switch *right at this very moment* to a discussion thread that 
is of more interest for you and there you go!


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Paul Mather]

On Oct 10, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Giles Coochey  wrote:

> On 10/10/2013 13:55, Ian Bowers wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis 
>>  wrote:
>> indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being overlooked by NSA 
>> doesn't mean everybody don't care.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat 
>>  wrote:
>> This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important. Please go on.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.  This is the 
>> wrong place to have the conversation.
>> 
>> I tried to turn this back into a product support discussion in the last 
>> thread but sadly my comments were not among those cherry picked.  This 
>> discussion does not suit the purpose of this list.  I see a bunch of hard 
>> working people reacting to their product's integrity being continuously 
>> questioned despite having all questions answered, and a few entitled 
>> consumers who can't be bothered to figure out technology well enough to come 
>> to their own conclusion on its integrity.As well as a bunch of people 
>> that want this discussion to go someplace more appropriate.  The "concerned" 
>> parties are not concerned enough to learn how to read code.  So you're 
>> paranoid, just not paranoid enough to actually learn how to answer your own 
>> questions.   
>> 
>> Unless there is an issue someone is having making a VPN work or getting NAT 
>> running right, this is the wrong place to hold this discussion.   If you're 
>> having an issue with this pfSense, networking protocols, or logical 
>> opertaion of the device, great!  let's talk about it!  I'm actually very 
>> good at these things, and I'd like to spend time helping people with network 
>> or network security related operational problems.  Otherwise, please find 
>> the email addresses of all the people who shown an interest in participating 
>> in this discussion, and send an email out to that list of people to discuss 
>> it among yourselves.  
>>  
>> 
> *BLINK!*
> 
> Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial question, and 
> trying to query very valid points are now leading me to seriously reconsider 
> the potential risk I have in continuing to use pfsense as a security tool.

Some people value the S/N ratio of mailing lists.  I believe the people asking 
for the discussion to be moved elsewhere are motivated by that.

As to people "trying to query very valid points," even if we take that on face 
value, what do you or they hope to accomplish by asking the pfSense project 
directly whether they have been approached by the NSA?  The reporting around 
the leaked NSA Files has established that one of the major concerns is the 
legal apparatus that enables the NSA to approach companies whilst compelling 
those companies not to reveal the fact.  So, it's highly likely that had the 
pfSense project been approached, part of that approach would have included a 
mandate not to tell anyone.  So how could a definitive answer be obtained given 
that silence from the pfSense project COULD be interpreted to mean "yes" but 
doesn't definitively mean "yes."  Some people have posited ways of evading such 
gag orders (e.g., 
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch),
 but, AFAIK, they have not been battle-tested in court.

I am left wondering, therefore, what it would take for people to accept that 
pfSense is trustworthy in a good-faith sense?  The original poster in this 
thread asked for a direct answer to a straightforward question and he got it, 
yet still he continues to pursue this thread.  To what end?  People are 
outraged at the NSA revelations, but the pfSense mailing list is not the 
appropriate place to be outraged at that.  Go comment at the news outlets.  
Write your elected officials.  Support the EFF and the likes.  But what more 
can be accomplished on this mailing list?

There was an attempt to redirect the thread to something more practical and 
focused on pfSense, e.g., what now could be considered best practices settings 
to use for encryption, but it doesn't appear to be gaining much traction vs. 
this thread.  (Part of that might be due to the fact that not much practical 
information is available right now.)  As I've pointed out, the original thread 
query has been answered definitively (twice now).  The original poster has said 
that the availability of the source code for scrutiny is not sufficient, but it 
seems that ultimately that is all you have to go on in open source projects.  
It's not clear to me what response it would take to establish trustworthiness 
in pfSense for the original poster and the others that are apparently being led 
to "to seriously reconsider the potential risk ... in continuing to use pfsense 
as a security tool."  Maybe if we can establish that, we can finally wrap up 
this thread as far as pfSense is concerned and get back to a pfSense-focused 
mailing list.

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Oliver Hansen]

*BLINK!*

Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial question,
and trying to query very valid points are now leading me to seriously
reconsider the potential risk I have in continuing to use pfsense as a
security tool.

The about list on the mailman page states: "pfSense support and discussion
list"...

About time someone quoted the mailman page. If you want the discussion to
end simply don't respond. If the majority *truly* agrees with you then it
will end.

I've been on this list for years and don't appreciate someone assuming to
speak for me about ending a thread.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[ognen]

I rarely participate in public political discussions but I have to say 
something:

In the United States if the government sent someonean NSL - they would not be 
allowed to comment. You have been told that already and have been told that to 
the best knowledge of the people involved, no other requests have been received.

You have turned this into a political discussion and I think at least I do not 
care about your political views. Yes, we all know NSA is evil and no, most of 
us do not like it.

Now, do you have a technical question on how to "protect yourself" from the 
evil spooks? If not, please go away, this is becoming boring.

Yes, it is an open public list but it does not mean it is your outlet to vent 
and abuse others.

My $.02

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:23:20PM +0300, Thinker Rix wrote:
> On 2013-10-10 16:08, Giles Coochey wrote:
> >On 10/10/2013 13:55, Ian Bowers wrote:
> >>On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis
> >> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being
> >>overlooked by NSA doesn't mean everybody don't care.
> >>
> >>On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat
> >> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important.
> >>Please go on.
> >>
> >>
> >>Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.
> >>This is the wrong place to have the conversation.
> >>
> >>I tried to turn this back into a product support discussion in
> >>the last thread but sadly my comments were not among those
> >>cherry picked.  This discussion does not suit the purpose of
> >>this list.  I see a bunch of hard working people reacting to
> >>their product's integrity being continuously questioned despite
> >>having all questions answered, and a few entitled consumers who
> >>can't be bothered to figure out technology well enough to come
> >>to their own conclusion on its integrity.As well as a bunch
> >>of people that want this discussion to go someplace more
> >>appropriate.  The "concerned" parties are not concerned enough
> >>to learn how to read code.  So you're paranoid, just not
> >>paranoid enough to actually learn how to answer your own
> >>questions.
> >>
> >>Unless there is an issue someone is having making a VPN work or
> >>getting NAT running right, this is the wrong place to hold this
> >>discussion.   If you're having an issue with this pfSense,
> >>networking protocols, or logical opertaion of the device, great!
> >>let's talk about it!  I'm actually very good at these things,
> >>and I'd like to spend time helping people with network or
> >>network security related operational problems.  Otherwise,
> >>please find the email addresses of all the people who shown an
> >>interest in participating in this discussion, and send an email
> >>out to that list of people to discuss it among yourselves.
> >>
> >*BLINK!*
> >
> >Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial
> >question, and trying to query very valid points are now leading me
> >to seriously reconsider the potential risk I have in continuing to
> >use pfsense as a security tool.
> 
> This is *exactly* the way I feel about this whole sensation that we
> are witnessing here! Some reactions are truly incredible!
> 
> >The about list on the mailman page states: "pfSense support and
> >discussion list"...
> 
> Correct!
> 
> But I guess those who waste our time by telling us we should shut up
> and walk away would like to rename the list to e.g. "Happy shallow
> chatting of pfSense fan boys who never dare to ask any critical
> question about their beloved firewall-distro that they take to bed
> each night" or something similar.
> 
> Self-censorship in a security software forum when it comes to
> discuss the security level of the security software! It's absolutely
> crazy!!
> 
> >This thread is clearly about discussing pfsense, therefore it is
> >on-topic, I could equally take the stance, take your technical
> >discussions to the dev list, however I am not the type of
> >exclusive close-minded minded person that you appear to be. Please
> >stop hijacking this thread.
> 
> FACK!!
> 
> Regards
> Thinker Rix

> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Ian Bowers]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

>  On 2013-10-10 15:55, Ian Bowers wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis <
> alexandre.para...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being overlooked by
>> NSA doesn't mean everybody don't care.
>>
>>  On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat <
>> rgbier...@rgbiernat.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important. Please go
>>> on.
>>>
>>
>  Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.  This is
> the wrong place to have the conversation.
>
>
> Ian, that is *your* opinion. As you can see, others here have a quite
> different opinion and they find this topic to be highly relevant for
> pfSense.
>
> Luckily this is an open mailing list, where everyone can pick the topics
> to read that interest him, so why you don't just walk away from this
> discussion instead of losing any time in telling others how uninteresting
> you find *their* discussion?
>
> And you even dare to tell us to go elsewhere... Who do you think you are?
>
> You are either a kind of sadomasochist - reading all day all kinds of
> discussions that do not interest you and telling the participants of that
> discussion that they should go elsewhere because they do not discuss what
> you find interesting and relevant - or you simply do not know how to use a
> mailing list properly. I suggest you go learn how to use a proper
> news/mailing-list reader. Hint: Threaded mode.
>
> Cheers
> Thinker Rix
>

"Personal opinion is irrelevant!  Here is my opinion of you".  seriously?


Who I think I am is a network security engineer.  And I'm very good at what
I do.  I eat breathe and sleep network security, and I have tons of
experience and expertise I'm willing to lend anyone.  I do this free of
charge, mostly in IRC, and occasionally even on this very mailing list.
I'm still very interested in helping everyone, even hostile folks like
yourself, with any technical problems they have.   But you don't seem
interested in that.

-Ian
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-10 16:08, Giles Coochey wrote:

On 10/10/2013 13:55, Ian Bowers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis 
mailto:alexandre.para...@gmail.com>> wrote:


indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being
overlooked by NSA doesn't mean everybody don't care.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat
mailto:rgbier...@rgbiernat.homelinux.org>> wrote:

This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important.
Please go on.


Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.  This 
is the wrong place to have the conversation.


I tried to turn this back into a product support discussion in the 
last thread but sadly my comments were not among those cherry picked. 
 This discussion does not suit the purpose of this list.  I see a 
bunch of hard working people reacting to their product's integrity 
being continuously questioned despite having all questions answered, 
and a few entitled consumers who can't be bothered to figure out 
technology well enough to come to their own conclusion on its 
integrity.As well as a bunch of people that want this discussion 
to go someplace more appropriate.  The "concerned" parties are not 
concerned enough to learn how to read code.  So you're paranoid, just 
not paranoid enough to actually learn how to answer your own questions.


Unless there is an issue someone is having making a VPN work or 
getting NAT running right, this is the wrong place to hold this 
discussion.   If you're having an issue with this pfSense, networking 
protocols, or logical opertaion of the device, great!  let's talk 
about it!  I'm actually very good at these things, and I'd like to 
spend time helping people with network or network security related 
operational problems.  Otherwise, please find the email addresses of 
all the people who shown an interest in participating in this 
discussion, and send an email out to that list of people to discuss 
it among yourselves.



*BLINK!*

Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial 
question, and trying to query very valid points are now leading me to 
seriously reconsider the potential risk I have in continuing to use 
pfsense as a security tool.


This is *exactly* the way I feel about this whole sensation that we are 
witnessing here! Some reactions are truly incredible!


The about list on the mailman page states: "pfSense support and 
discussion list"...


Correct!

But I guess those who waste our time by telling us we should shut up and 
walk away would like to rename the list to e.g. "Happy shallow chatting 
of pfSense fan boys who never dare to ask any critical question about 
their beloved firewall-distro that they take to bed each night" or 
something similar.


Self-censorship in a security software forum when it comes to discuss 
the security level of the security software! It's absolutely crazy!!


This thread is clearly about discussing pfsense, therefore it is 
on-topic, I could equally take the stance, take your technical 
discussions to the dev list, however I am not the type of exclusive 
close-minded minded person that you appear to be. Please stop 
hijacking this thread.


FACK!!

Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Giles Coochey]

On 10/10/2013 13:55, Ian Bowers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis 
mailto:alexandre.para...@gmail.com>> wrote:


indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being
overlooked by NSA doesn't mean everybody don't care.




On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat
mailto:rgbier...@rgbiernat.homelinux.org>> wrote:

This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important.
Please go on.




Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.  This 
is the wrong place to have the conversation.


I tried to turn this back into a product support discussion in the 
last thread but sadly my comments were not among those cherry picked. 
 This discussion does not suit the purpose of this list.  I see a 
bunch of hard working people reacting to their product's integrity 
being continuously questioned despite having all questions answered, 
and a few entitled consumers who can't be bothered to figure out 
technology well enough to come to their own conclusion on its 
integrity.As well as a bunch of people that want this discussion 
to go someplace more appropriate.  The "concerned" parties are not 
concerned enough to learn how to read code.  So you're paranoid, just 
not paranoid enough to actually learn how to answer your own questions.


Unless there is an issue someone is having making a VPN work or 
getting NAT running right, this is the wrong place to hold this 
discussion.   If you're having an issue with this pfSense, networking 
protocols, or logical opertaion of the device, great!  let's talk 
about it!  I'm actually very good at these things, and I'd like to 
spend time helping people with network or network security related 
operational problems.  Otherwise, please find the email addresses of 
all the people who shown an interest in participating in this 
discussion, and send an email out to that list of people to discuss it 
among yourselves.



*BLINK!*

Incredible the way I am seeing the reaction to the initial question, 
and trying to query very valid points are now leading me to seriously 
reconsider the potential risk I have in continuing to use pfsense as a 
security tool.


The about list on the mailman page states: "pfSense support and 
discussion list"...


This thread is clearly about discussing pfsense, therefore it is 
on-topic, I could equally take the stance, take your technical 
discussions to the dev list, however I am not the type of exclusive 
close-minded minded person that you appear to be. Please stop hijacking 
this thread.


--
Regards,

Giles Coochey, CCNP, CCNA, CCNAS
NetSecSpec Ltd
+44 (0) 8444 780677
+44 (0) 7983 877438
http://www.coochey.net
http://www.netsecspec.co.uk
gi...@coochey.net



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-10 15:55, Ian Bowers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis 
mailto:alexandre.para...@gmail.com>> wrote:


indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being
overlooked by NSA doesn't mean everybody don't care.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat
mailto:rgbier...@rgbiernat.homelinux.org>> wrote:

This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important.
Please go on.


Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.  This 
is the wrong place to have the conversation.


Ian, that is *your* opinion. As you can see, others here have a quite 
different opinion and they find this topic to be highly relevant for 
pfSense.


Luckily this is an open mailing list, where everyone can pick the topics 
to read that interest him, so why you don't just walk away from this 
discussion instead of losing any time in telling others how 
uninteresting you find *their* discussion?


And you even dare to tell us to go elsewhere... Who do you think you are?

You are either a kind of sadomasochist - reading all day all kinds of 
discussions that do not interest you and telling the participants of 
that discussion that they should go elsewhere because they do not 
discuss what you find interesting and relevant - or you simply do not 
know how to use a mailing list properly. I suggest you go learn how to 
use a proper news/mailing-list reader. Hint: Threaded mode.


Cheers
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Ian Bowers]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alexandre Paradis <
alexandre.para...@gmail.com> wrote:

> indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being overlooked by NSA
> doesn't mean everybody don't care.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat <
> rgbier...@rgbiernat.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important. Please go on.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Whether or not this is an important conversation is irrelevant.  This is
the wrong place to have the conversation.

I tried to turn this back into a product support discussion in the last
thread but sadly my comments were not among those cherry picked.  This
discussion does not suit the purpose of this list.  I see a bunch of hard
working people reacting to their product's integrity being continuously
questioned despite having all questions answered, and a few entitled
consumers who can't be bothered to figure out technology well enough to
come to their own conclusion on its integrity.As well as a bunch of
people that want this discussion to go someplace more appropriate.  The
"concerned" parties are not concerned enough to learn how to read code.  So
you're paranoid, just not paranoid enough to actually learn how to answer
your own questions.

Unless there is an issue someone is having making a VPN work or getting NAT
running right, this is the wrong place to hold this discussion.   If you're
having an issue with this pfSense, networking protocols, or logical
opertaion of the device, great!  let's talk about it!  I'm actually very
good at these things, and I'd like to spend time helping people with
network or network security related operational problems.  Otherwise,
please find the email addresses of all the people who shown an interest in
participating in this discussion, and send an email out to that list of
people to discuss it among yourselves.

-Ian
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Alexandre Paradis]

indeed, i vote to continue. Because you don't mind being overlooked by NSA
doesn't mean everybody don't care.




On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Rüdiger G. Biernat <
rgbier...@rgbiernat.homelinux.org> wrote:

> This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important. Please go on.
>
>
> Von Samsung Mobile gesendet
>
>
>  Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
> Von: Giles Coochey **
> Datum:10.10.2013 11:39 (GMT+01:00)
> An: list@lists.pfsense.org
> Betreff: Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or
> others?
>
> On 10/10/2013 09:38, Thinker Rix wrote:
> > On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
> >> Thinker Rix  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank,
> >>> straight-forward and very simple question.
> >> That's right and they were justified.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >> BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
> >> is exceptional.), that's the nasty answers from some.
> >
> > Yes, I guess I have hit a whole bunch of different nerves with my
> > question, and I find it to be highly interesting to observe some of
> > the awkward reactions, socioscientificly and psychologically.
> >
> > I have been insulted, I have been bullied, I have been called to
> > self-censor myself and at the end some users "virtually joined" to
> > give the illusion of a majority an muzzle me, stating, that my
> > question has no place at this pfSense mailing list. Really amazing,
> > partly hilarious reactions, I think.
> > These reactions say so much about how far the whole surveillance and
> > mind-suppression has proceeded already and how much it has influenced
> > the thoughts and behavior of formerly free people by now. Frightening.
> >
> >> Thinker Rix, you are not alone at your unease pressing you to ask
> >> those questions about pfSense and NSA.
> >
> > Thank you for showing your support openly!
>
> I too was surprised to see some activity on the pfsense list, after
> seeing only a few posts per week I checked today to find several dozen
> messages talking about a topic I have been concerned with myself - as a
> network security specialist, how much can I trust the firewalls I use,
> be they embedded devices, software packages, or 'hardware' from
> manufacturers.
> There are many on-topic things to discuss here:
> 1. Which Ciphers & Transforms should we now consider secure (pfsense
> provides quite a few cipher choices over some other off the shelf hardware.
> 2. What hardware / software & configuration changes can we consider to
> improve RNG and ensure that should we increase the bit size of our
> encryption, reduce lifetimes of our SAs that we can still ensure we have
> enough entropy in the RNG on a device that is typically starved of
> traditional entropy sources.
>
> This is so much on-topic, I am surprised that there has been a movement
> to call this thread to stop, granted - it may seem that the conversation
> may drift into a political one, with regard to privacy law etc...
> however, that is a valid sub-topic for a discussion list that addresses
> devices that are designed and implemented to safe-guard privacy.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Giles Coochey, CCNP, CCNA, CCNAS
> NetSecSpec Ltd
> +44 (0) 8444 780677
> +44 (0) 7983 877438
> http://www.coochey.net
> http://www.netsecspec.co.uk
> gi...@coochey.net
>
>
>
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
>


-- 
Alexandre
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Rüdiger G . Biernat]

This discussion about security/NSA/encryption IS important. Please go on.


Von Samsung Mobile gesendet

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Giles Coochey  
Datum:10.10.2013  11:39  (GMT+01:00) 
An: list@lists.pfsense.org 
Betreff: Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or 
others? 

On 10/10/2013 09:38, Thinker Rix wrote:
> On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
>> Thinker Rix  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank,
>>> straight-forward and very simple question.
>> That's right and they were justified.
>
> Thank you!
>
>> BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
>> is exceptional.), that's the nasty answers from some.
>
> Yes, I guess I have hit a whole bunch of different nerves with my 
> question, and I find it to be highly interesting to observe some of 
> the awkward reactions, socioscientificly and psychologically.
>
> I have been insulted, I have been bullied, I have been called to 
> self-censor myself and at the end some users "virtually joined" to 
> give the illusion of a majority an muzzle me, stating, that my 
> question has no place at this pfSense mailing list. Really amazing, 
> partly hilarious reactions, I think.
> These reactions say so much about how far the whole surveillance and 
> mind-suppression has proceeded already and how much it has influenced 
> the thoughts and behavior of formerly free people by now. Frightening.
>
>> Thinker Rix, you are not alone at your unease pressing you to ask
>> those questions about pfSense and NSA.
>
> Thank you for showing your support openly!

I too was surprised to see some activity on the pfsense list, after 
seeing only a few posts per week I checked today to find several dozen 
messages talking about a topic I have been concerned with myself - as a 
network security specialist, how much can I trust the firewalls I use, 
be they embedded devices, software packages, or 'hardware' from 
manufacturers.
There are many on-topic things to discuss here:
1. Which Ciphers & Transforms should we now consider secure (pfsense 
provides quite a few cipher choices over some other off the shelf hardware.
2. What hardware / software & configuration changes can we consider to 
improve RNG and ensure that should we increase the bit size of our 
encryption, reduce lifetimes of our SAs that we can still ensure we have 
enough entropy in the RNG on a device that is typically starved of 
traditional entropy sources.

This is so much on-topic, I am surprised that there has been a movement 
to call this thread to stop, granted - it may seem that the conversation 
may drift into a political one, with regard to privacy law etc... 
however, that is a valid sub-topic for a discussion list that addresses 
devices that are designed and implemented to safe-guard privacy.

-- 
Regards,

Giles Coochey, CCNP, CCNA, CCNAS
NetSecSpec Ltd
+44 (0) 8444 780677
+44 (0) 7983 877438
http://www.coochey.net
http://www.netsecspec.co.uk
gi...@coochey.net



___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hi Giles

On 2013-10-10 12:39, Giles Coochey wrote:

On 10/10/2013 09:38, Thinker Rix wrote:

On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
Thinker Rix  wrote:


Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank,
straight-forward and very simple question.

That's right and they were justified.


Thank you!


BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
is exceptional.), that's the nasty answers from some.


Yes, I guess I have hit a whole bunch of different nerves with my 
question, and I find it to be highly interesting to observe some of 
the awkward reactions, socioscientificly and psychologically.


I have been insulted, I have been bullied, I have been called to 
self-censor myself and at the end some users "virtually joined" to 
give the illusion of a majority an muzzle me, stating, that my 
question has no place at this pfSense mailing list. Really amazing, 
partly hilarious reactions, I think.
These reactions say so much about how far the whole surveillance and 
mind-suppression has proceeded already and how much it has influenced 
the thoughts and behavior of formerly free people by now. Frightening.



Thinker Rix, you are not alone at your unease pressing you to ask
those questions about pfSense and NSA.


Thank you for showing your support openly!


I too was surprised to see some activity on the pfsense list, after 
seeing only a few posts per week I checked today to find several dozen 
messages talking about a topic I have been concerned with myself - as 
a network security specialist, how much can I trust the firewalls I 
use, be they embedded devices, software packages, or 'hardware' from 
manufacturers.


Exactly. The firewall is the neuralgic point of each of the networks 
that we administer. Thinking - and talking - about it's integrity is the 
most natural and most important thing on earth, IMO.



There are many on-topic things to discuss here:
1. Which Ciphers & Transforms should we now consider secure (pfsense 
provides quite a few cipher choices over some other off the shelf 
hardware.
2. What hardware / software & configuration changes can we consider to 
improve RNG and ensure that should we increase the bit size of our 
encryption, reduce lifetimes of our SAs that we can still ensure we 
have enough entropy in the RNG on a device that is typically starved 
of traditional entropy sources.


You made some highly relevant and interesting suggestions here, and I 
sincerely hope that a fruitful discussion will develop upon this so that 
we all can benefit of it!


This is so much on-topic, I am surprised that there has been a 
movement to call this thread to stop, granted - it may seem that the 
conversation may drift into a political one, with regard to privacy 
law etc... however, that is a valid sub-topic for a discussion list 
that addresses devices that are designed and implemented to safe-guard 
privacy.


This echoes my sentiments exactly!

Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hello Chris,

Thank you for your unemotional, factual statement!

On 2013-10-10 03:17, Chris Buechler wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

today I posted the following on your blog at http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712



“Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am

Hi guys,

I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.

Thank you

Worried User”



Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the public
- but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.

Not true, the comment was moderator approved. The only reason we have
moderation at all is because spam significantly outnumbers legit
comments and we don't want any spam on any of our sites, there isn't
some vast conspiracy going on.


I see. Well, it was pending moderator approval for an hour or so and 
then suddenly appeared to me as being removed. Maybe it was just because 
of some browser issue over here, i don't know. Today I see the posting 
being published and also your answer to it. Thank you for that!



No, we have not been approached by anyone to backdoor or otherwise
compromise security of the project, at any point during our 9 year
history.


Thank you for this unambiguous, precise answer.
That is the kind of answer, that I was hoping for.


I have indeed met with the NSA in person related to the product of one
of our rebrand customers a couple years back, one of their groups was
interested in evaluating the product. It survived their security
analysis quite well (at least from what they declassified and
released), and better than most things that come into their lab from
what I understand. At no point did any discussion happen related to
back doors or other means of compromising security for them. I wasn't
under NDA nor do I have a security clearance.


Thank you for this additional, very valuable information, too.


It is effectively a moot question to ask, given if we were, there's no
way we could disclose that.


Well, sometimes you get the most interesting information out of simple, 
straightforward questions. By my comprehension this whole thread is a 
vivid proof for that.


And given that you where bound to a nondisclosure-dictate by your 
government; you would have only three choices:

a) "We don't want to say"
b)  or awkward answer
c) Lying

a) and b) are a clear "yes" and given that not everybody is comfortable 
lying, chances exist that you might feel it.



Evidence suggests a number of huge tech
companies have complied. There hasn't been any evidence to date that
any open source projects were approached.


Well, there is some evidence to suggest that Linus/Linux has been 
approached.

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/09/19/0227238/linus-torvalds-admits-hes-been-asked-to-insert-backdoor-into-linux
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/19/linux_backdoor_intrigue/


A number of widely-respected
security people have come out and said that open source solutions are
better in the aftermath of the recent revelations. One example:
"My guess is that most encryption products from large US companies
have NSA-friendly back doors, and many foreign ones probably do as
well. It's prudent to assume that foreign products also have
foreign-installed backdoors. Closed-source software is easier for the
NSA to backdoor than open-source software." -Bruce Schneier
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/how_to_remain_s.html


Well yes, the publication of the source code allows others to review it, 
and given that the code is being maintained in a public revision control 
repository increases chances, that malicious changes are identified 
quickly. These are advantages that cloused source projects do not have a 
priori, I agree.
But in practice open source projects are no universal remedy to 
malicious influences. Take for example the transition from the publicly 
revised source code to the binary versions. Chances are extremely high 
that no one will ever notice any last-minute changes to the local source 
code, such as adding some surveillance "features", prior compiling the 
binaries out of it and releasing them to the public, or am I mistaking?


So at the end everything stands or falls with the trust that you have in 
a project, i.e. the key people of the project. So what was more obvious 
than just asking them directly and see what they have to say about that 
topic..


So, since we cleared that out, please allow me to ask some continuative 
questions:
Has the project pfSense (i.e. it's leaders) ever thought about what 
it/they would do if the day should come where those NSA-people (or 
others) knock the door and demand infiltration, as they did e.g. with 
Lavabit? Is there some way that the project

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Giles Coochey]

On 10/10/2013 09:38, Thinker Rix wrote:

On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
Thinker Rix  wrote:


Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank,
straight-forward and very simple question.

That's right and they were justified.


Thank you!


BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
is exceptional.), that's the nasty answers from some.


Yes, I guess I have hit a whole bunch of different nerves with my 
question, and I find it to be highly interesting to observe some of 
the awkward reactions, socioscientificly and psychologically.


I have been insulted, I have been bullied, I have been called to 
self-censor myself and at the end some users "virtually joined" to 
give the illusion of a majority an muzzle me, stating, that my 
question has no place at this pfSense mailing list. Really amazing, 
partly hilarious reactions, I think.
These reactions say so much about how far the whole surveillance and 
mind-suppression has proceeded already and how much it has influenced 
the thoughts and behavior of formerly free people by now. Frightening.



Thinker Rix, you are not alone at your unease pressing you to ask
those questions about pfSense and NSA.


Thank you for showing your support openly!


I too was surprised to see some activity on the pfsense list, after 
seeing only a few posts per week I checked today to find several dozen 
messages talking about a topic I have been concerned with myself - as a 
network security specialist, how much can I trust the firewalls I use, 
be they embedded devices, software packages, or 'hardware' from 
manufacturers.

There are many on-topic things to discuss here:
1. Which Ciphers & Transforms should we now consider secure (pfsense 
provides quite a few cipher choices over some other off the shelf hardware.
2. What hardware / software & configuration changes can we consider to 
improve RNG and ensure that should we increase the bit size of our 
encryption, reduce lifetimes of our SAs that we can still ensure we have 
enough entropy in the RNG on a device that is typically starved of 
traditional entropy sources.


This is so much on-topic, I am surprised that there has been a movement 
to call this thread to stop, granted - it may seem that the conversation 
may drift into a political one, with regard to privacy law etc... 
however, that is a valid sub-topic for a discussion list that addresses 
devices that are designed and implemented to safe-guard privacy.


--
Regards,

Giles Coochey, CCNP, CCNA, CCNAS
NetSecSpec Ltd
+44 (0) 8444 780677
+44 (0) 7983 877438
http://www.coochey.net
http://www.netsecspec.co.uk
gi...@coochey.net




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
Thinker Rix  wrote:


Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank,
straight-forward and very simple question.

That's right and they were justified.


Thank you!


BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
is exceptional.), that's the nasty answers from some.


Yes, I guess I have hit a whole bunch of different nerves with my 
question, and I find it to be highly interesting to observe some of the 
awkward reactions, socioscientificly and psychologically.


I have been insulted, I have been bullied, I have been called to 
self-censor myself and at the end some users "virtually joined" to give 
the illusion of a majority an muzzle me, stating, that my question has 
no place at this pfSense mailing list. Really amazing, partly hilarious 
reactions, I think.
These reactions say so much about how far the whole surveillance and 
mind-suppression has proceeded already and how much it has influenced 
the thoughts and behavior of formerly free people by now. Frightening.



Thinker Rix, you are not alone at your unease pressing you to ask
those questions about pfSense and NSA.


Thank you for showing your support openly!

Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Chris L]

Guess I struck a nerve.

You have no clue what my stance has been on the growing surveillance state for 
the past decades, so I think it is you who should curtail his speech.

Yup. They called us paranoid and tinfoil hat and conspiracy theorists.  
Surprisingly, it continues to this day.

On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Michael Schuh  wrote:

> @Chris L
> 
> i am not responsible, if you didn't get it.
> 
> if one comes to me with worries about an completely free open source system
> by using an Closed Source SHIT.
> <<< this is ridoculous
> 
> He should first consider his Closed Source Shit.
> Now i find also his nick misleading, he should name NON-Thinker!
> he should make his name a honor by doing himself the favor and use his brain.
> 
> 
> Get this out of the pfSense lists.
> This is a support list and not an philosophers corner what everything is bad 
> in the world.
> 
> SUPPORT LIST for pfSense. GET IT
> 
> just to point it out:
> ppl. whose are supporting closed source software are also supporting the NSA
> and all the other kind of shit.
> As long as one uses closed source software he should shut the fuck up.
> As long as one uses the internet he should shut the fuck up.
> As long as one uses TCP/IP he should shut the fuck up.
> As long one is using Smartphones, Credit-Cards, Onlinebanking, Online-shops 
> and so on
> shut the fuck up.
> 
> if one cannot understand why:
> Internet -> invented by DARPA
> TCP/IP -> invented by DARPA
> RSA encryption -> financed by DARPA/NSA/Government
> 
> alternatives: invent a new internet including a new internet protocol and all 
> the stuff around it.
> 
> otoh he is to late. he missed the important points.
> the leaked informations about Xkeysystem are from 2005 or 2008, huuuhaa and 
> now they all whine.
> if your holyness mr snowden wouldn't be such a hero, you wouldn't even know, 
> care or worry about it.
> so this is entirely ridiculous. one more time.
> where are you been as it was important to care about it? eh?
> 
> at the times we warned the people, nobody would listen and called us
> those who warned them: paranoid.
> 
> everyone uses high technologized stuff without to have any clue about how 
> this works,
> if ppl. like us told them: learn this stuff, it can be dangerous
> the answer was: naahh thats not important, i know what i am doing. you are 
> paranoid, nobody would ever do so.
> 
> i see. and now they come and whine ...pah *lol*
> 
> this has nothing to do with head meet sand.
> may be, your head should get out of the sand.
> 
> ridiculous. this entire thematics is ridicoulus.
> 
> 
> = = =  http://michael-schuh.net/  = = = 
> Projektmanagement - IT-Consulting - Professional Services IT
> Rev. Michael Schuh
> Ordained Dudeist Priest
> Postfach 10 21 52
> 66021 Saarbrücken
> phone: 0681/8319664
> @: m i c h a e l . s c h u h @ g m a i l . c o m
> 
> = = =  Ust-ID:  DE251072318  = = =
> 
> 
> 2013/10/10 Chris L 
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Michael Schuh  wrote:
> 
> > ridiculous
> 
> Head, meet sand.
> 
> Then again, consider the country of origin.  They have a history of not 
> recognizing naked tyranny and evil until it's far too late.
> 
> They will be in good company with all the apologists for the current American 
> surveillance state.
> 
> 
> >
> > vvv
> > From: Thinker Rix  > >
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
> >  rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > = = =  http://michael-schuh.net/  = = =
> > Projektmanagement - IT-Consulting - Professional Services IT
> > Rev. Michael Schuh
> > Ordained Dudeist Priest
> > Postfach 10 21 52
> > 66021 Saarbrücken
> > phone: 0681/8319664
> > @: m i c h a e l . s c h u h @ g m a i l . c o m
> >
> > = = =  Ust-ID:  DE251072318  = = =
> >
> >
> > 2013/10/10 Chris Buechler 
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix  
> > wrote:
> > > Dear pfsense-team,
> > >
> > > today I posted the following on your blog at 
> > > http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
> > >
> > > October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
> > > such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> > > spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Worried User”
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the 
> > > public
> > > - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
> > >
> >
> > Not true, the comment was moderator approved. The only reason we have
> > moderation at all is because spam significantly outnumbers legit
> > comments and we don't want any spam on any of our sites,

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Michael Schuh]

@Chris L

i am not responsible, if you didn't get it.

if one comes to me with worries about an completely free open source system
by using an Closed Source SHIT.
<<< this is ridoculous

He should first consider his Closed Source Shit.
Now i find also his nick misleading, he should name NON-Thinker!
he should make his name a honor by doing himself the favor and use his
brain.


Get this out of the pfSense lists.
This is a support list and not an philosophers corner what everything is
bad in the world.

SUPPORT LIST for pfSense. GET IT

just to point it out:
ppl. whose are supporting closed source software are also supporting the NSA
and all the other kind of shit.
As long as one uses closed source software he should shut the fuck up.
As long as one uses the internet he should shut the fuck up.
As long as one uses TCP/IP he should shut the fuck up.
As long one is using Smartphones, Credit-Cards, Onlinebanking, Online-shops
and so on
shut the fuck up.

if one cannot understand why:
Internet -> invented by DARPA
TCP/IP -> invented by DARPA
RSA encryption -> financed by DARPA/NSA/Government

alternatives: invent a new internet including a new internet protocol and
all the stuff around it.

otoh he is to late. he missed the important points.
the leaked informations about Xkeysystem are from 2005 or 2008, huuuhaa and
now they all whine.
if your holyness mr snowden wouldn't be such a hero, you wouldn't even
know, care or worry about it.
so this is entirely ridiculous. one more time.
where are you been as it was important to care about it? eh?

at the times we warned the people, nobody would listen and called us
those who warned them: paranoid.

everyone uses high technologized stuff without to have any clue about how
this works,
if ppl. like us told them: learn this stuff, it can be dangerous
the answer was: naahh thats not important, i know what i am doing. you are
paranoid, nobody would ever do so.

i see. and now they come and whine ...pah *lol*

this has nothing to do with head meet sand.
may be, your head should get out of the sand.

ridiculous. this entire thematics is ridicoulus.


= = =  http://michael-schuh.net/  = = =
Projektmanagement - IT-Consulting - Professional Services IT
Rev. Michael 
Schuh
*Ordained Dudeist Priest *
Postfach 10 21 52
66021 Saarbrücken
phone: 0681/8319664
@: m i c h a e l . s c h u h @ g m a i l . c o m

= = =  Ust-ID:  DE251072318  = = =


2013/10/10 Chris L 

> On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Michael Schuh  wrote:
>
> > ridiculous
>
> Head, meet sand.
>
> Then again, consider the country of origin.  They have a history of not
> recognizing naked tyranny and evil until it's far too late.
>
> They will be in good company with all the apologists for the current
> American surveillance state.
>
>
> >
> > vvv
> > From: Thinker Rix  > >
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
> >  rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > = = =  http://michael-schuh.net/  = = =
> > Projektmanagement - IT-Consulting - Professional Services IT
> > Rev. Michael Schuh
> > Ordained Dudeist Priest
> > Postfach 10 21 52
> > 66021 Saarbrücken
> > phone: 0681/8319664
> > @: m i c h a e l . s c h u h @ g m a i l . c o m
> >
> > = = =  Ust-ID:  DE251072318  = = =
> >
> >
> > 2013/10/10 Chris Buechler 
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix 
> wrote:
> > > Dear pfsense-team,
> > >
> > > today I posted the following on your blog at
> http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
> > >
> > > October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government
> officials,
> > > such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> > > spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Worried User”
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the
> public
> > > - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
> > >
> >
> > Not true, the comment was moderator approved. The only reason we have
> > moderation at all is because spam significantly outnumbers legit
> > comments and we don't want any spam on any of our sites, there isn't
> > some vast conspiracy going on.
> >
> > No, we have not been approached by anyone to backdoor or otherwise
> > compromise security of the project, at any point during our 9 year
> > history.
> >
> > I have indeed met with the NSA in person related to the product of one
> > of our rebrand customers a couple years back, one of their groups was
> > interested in evaluating the product. It survived the

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Chris L]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Michael Schuh  wrote:

> ridiculous

Head, meet sand.

Then again, consider the country of origin.  They have a history of not 
recognizing naked tyranny and evil until it's far too late.

They will be in good company with all the apologists for the current American 
surveillance state.


> 
> vvv
> From: Thinker Rix  >
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
>  rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = = =  http://michael-schuh.net/  = = = 
> Projektmanagement - IT-Consulting - Professional Services IT
> Rev. Michael Schuh
> Ordained Dudeist Priest
> Postfach 10 21 52
> 66021 Saarbrücken
> phone: 0681/8319664
> @: m i c h a e l . s c h u h @ g m a i l . c o m
> 
> = = =  Ust-ID:  DE251072318  = = =
> 
> 
> 2013/10/10 Chris Buechler 
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix  wrote:
> > Dear pfsense-team,
> >
> > today I posted the following on your blog at http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
> >
> > October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
> > such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> > spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Worried User”
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the public
> > - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
> >
> 
> Not true, the comment was moderator approved. The only reason we have
> moderation at all is because spam significantly outnumbers legit
> comments and we don't want any spam on any of our sites, there isn't
> some vast conspiracy going on.
> 
> No, we have not been approached by anyone to backdoor or otherwise
> compromise security of the project, at any point during our 9 year
> history.
> 
> I have indeed met with the NSA in person related to the product of one
> of our rebrand customers a couple years back, one of their groups was
> interested in evaluating the product. It survived their security
> analysis quite well (at least from what they declassified and
> released), and better than most things that come into their lab from
> what I understand. At no point did any discussion happen related to
> back doors or other means of compromising security for them. I wasn't
> under NDA nor do I have a security clearance.
> 
> It is effectively a moot question to ask, given if we were, there's no
> way we could disclose that. Evidence suggests a number of huge tech
> companies have complied. There hasn't been any evidence to date that
> any open source projects were approached. A number of widely-respected
> security people have come out and said that open source solutions are
> better in the aftermath of the recent revelations. One example:
> "My guess is that most encryption products from large US companies
> have NSA-friendly back doors, and many foreign ones probably do as
> well. It's prudent to assume that foreign products also have
> foreign-installed backdoors. Closed-source software is easier for the
> NSA to backdoor than open-source software." -Bruce Schneier
> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/how_to_remain_s.html
> 
> On crypto-related components, we rely on what's in stock FreeBSD.
> There are no indications it has been weakened or compromised.
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> 
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Michael Schuh]

ridiculous

vvv

From: Thinker Rix 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8






= = =  http://michael-schuh.net/  = = =
Projektmanagement - IT-Consulting - Professional Services IT
Rev. Michael 
Schuh
*Ordained Dudeist Priest *
Postfach 10 21 52
66021 Saarbrücken
phone: 0681/8319664
@: m i c h a e l . s c h u h @ g m a i l . c o m

= = =  Ust-ID:  DE251072318  = = =


2013/10/10 Chris Buechler 

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix 
> wrote:
> > Dear pfsense-team,
> >
> > today I posted the following on your blog at
> http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
> >
> > October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
> > such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> > spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Worried User”
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the
> public
> > - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
> >
>
> Not true, the comment was moderator approved. The only reason we have
> moderation at all is because spam significantly outnumbers legit
> comments and we don't want any spam on any of our sites, there isn't
> some vast conspiracy going on.
>
> No, we have not been approached by anyone to backdoor or otherwise
> compromise security of the project, at any point during our 9 year
> history.
>
> I have indeed met with the NSA in person related to the product of one
> of our rebrand customers a couple years back, one of their groups was
> interested in evaluating the product. It survived their security
> analysis quite well (at least from what they declassified and
> released), and better than most things that come into their lab from
> what I understand. At no point did any discussion happen related to
> back doors or other means of compromising security for them. I wasn't
> under NDA nor do I have a security clearance.
>
> It is effectively a moot question to ask, given if we were, there's no
> way we could disclose that. Evidence suggests a number of huge tech
> companies have complied. There hasn't been any evidence to date that
> any open source projects were approached. A number of widely-respected
> security people have come out and said that open source solutions are
> better in the aftermath of the recent revelations. One example:
> "My guess is that most encryption products from large US companies
> have NSA-friendly back doors, and many foreign ones probably do as
> well. It's prudent to assume that foreign products also have
> foreign-installed backdoors. Closed-source software is easier for the
> NSA to backdoor than open-source software." -Bruce Schneier
> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/how_to_remain_s.html
>
> On crypto-related components, we rely on what's in stock FreeBSD.
> There are no indications it has been weakened or compromised.
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Chris Buechler]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix  wrote:
> Dear pfsense-team,
>
> today I posted the following on your blog at http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
>
>
> 
>
> “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
>
> October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
> such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.
>
> Thank you
>
> Worried User”
>
> 
>
>
> Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the public
> - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
>

Not true, the comment was moderator approved. The only reason we have
moderation at all is because spam significantly outnumbers legit
comments and we don't want any spam on any of our sites, there isn't
some vast conspiracy going on.

No, we have not been approached by anyone to backdoor or otherwise
compromise security of the project, at any point during our 9 year
history.

I have indeed met with the NSA in person related to the product of one
of our rebrand customers a couple years back, one of their groups was
interested in evaluating the product. It survived their security
analysis quite well (at least from what they declassified and
released), and better than most things that come into their lab from
what I understand. At no point did any discussion happen related to
back doors or other means of compromising security for them. I wasn't
under NDA nor do I have a security clearance.

It is effectively a moot question to ask, given if we were, there's no
way we could disclose that. Evidence suggests a number of huge tech
companies have complied. There hasn't been any evidence to date that
any open source projects were approached. A number of widely-respected
security people have come out and said that open source solutions are
better in the aftermath of the recent revelations. One example:
"My guess is that most encryption products from large US companies
have NSA-friendly back doors, and many foreign ones probably do as
well. It's prudent to assume that foreign products also have
foreign-installed backdoors. Closed-source software is easier for the
NSA to backdoor than open-source software." -Bruce Schneier
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/how_to_remain_s.html

On crypto-related components, we rely on what's in stock FreeBSD.
There are no indications it has been weakened or compromised.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Przemysław Pawełczyk]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
Thinker Rix  wrote:

> Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank, 
> straight-forward and very simple question.

That's right and they were justified.

BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
is exceptional.), that's the nasty answers from some.

Thinker Rix, you are not alone at your unease pressing you to ask
those questions about pfSense and NSA.

Regards to all.
Przemysław Pawełczyk

-- 
Home network based on pfSense 2.1.


pgpGkBt8vlxDS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 23:43, Pim van Stam wrote:

All,

Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
This endless discussion would be reason for me to unsubscribe and that's not 
the goal of the list i guess.

Regards, Pim


Hi Pim,

first of all: Generally - sorry for disturbing you.

But: Interpreting your message, I guess you are participating at this 
mailing list with a mail reader that just pours all incoming mail into 
one folder - which is not "the proper way" to read mailing lists.
Please let me inform you that it is highly advisable to participate at 
mailing lists only with a mail reader that allows you to view incoming 
mail in "threaded mode". This way you only get to read messages that 
interest you, instead of being flooded by all messages of all users with 
all subjects.


Not using such a threaded-capable reader but telling others what to 
write and what not because you are bored about what they discuss is not 
really a solution :-)


A reader that is capable of threaded view mode is e.g. Mozilla 
Thunderbird (View > Sort by > Threaded)


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 21:42, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:


We all know that the governments currently force on a daily base one company 
after the other to comply to their New World 
Order-Orwellian-global-surveillance phantasies and make them compromise their 
software or service. So I find it absolutely NECESSARY to clear out if pfSense 
has fallen (already) to them, or not. Network security is THE major reason for 
using pfSense. So it should be the most important question for all of us, isn't 
it?

By my comprehension, everyone who says that this is a silly question or that it 
is some unimportant thought no one should further bother thinking about in 
detail, is either confused, or trying to conceal something.

You just want to have a discussion.


Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank, 
straight-forward and very simple question.
But instead of a simple and clear answer, I got some pretty aggressive, 
snappish and awkward reactions (mainly from you, by the way), and some 
other users additionally threw in many other aspects so that yes - 
subsequently a discussion evolved.



   Perhaps it makes you feel important, I don’t know.  Your Alex Jonesian “New 
World Odor” rhetoric is tiring.


I guess you simply cant talk without offending and dispraising your 
partner, do you?



Your NECESSARY discussion is not, because in the end analysis the discussion 
you want to have is orthogonal to the subject.   You should instead only depend 
on you and your tools to ensure your security.  Asking me (or Chris, or Jamie) 
to answer the question puts everyone in a position where nothing can be 
learned, so it is useless, rather than NECESSARY.


Oh yes, a lot can be learned. I asked a very simple question:
"I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government 
officials, such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any 
backdoors, spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so."


Possible answers could have been e.g.:

1. "No, fortunately we have not been approached by anyone yet"
2. "Yes, we have been approached but we withstood. The current situation 
is XY"

3. "We are not allowed to answer that"
4. 
5. etc., etc., etc.

Especially answer no. 1 should have been a no-brainer in the case that 
it is true. You, me and everyone else her would just be happy about that 
no one has harassed you (yet) and it should not have been any problem 
whatsoever to talk about it, shouldn't it?


But strangely, instead of just saying "no, fortunately no one has 
approached us yet!", I got plenty of negative and sometimes even quite 
aggressive feedback for "daring to ask" such a "naive question". Like if 
there is a kind of taboo on that...
This is something that clearly confounds me. As David Burgess stated 
above: Sometimes by asking a question, you receive a lot of information 
between the lines.


Frankly, I am still unsure about how to interpret the result of this 
whole thread. Are you barking and biting so much, because you have 
something to hide, finally? Is that the reason why you bully me so much 
for posing a simple question that should be the most natural question to 
ask such a kind of project? Or is there another reason? I don't know. 
But to me it seems like if I have hit a hornet's nest with my question.



Until you understand and accept this, your messages are mere platitudes.


Thanks once again (see all other answers of you, too) for being so 
"polite" to me. Being an project leader and thus a representative of the 
project, by talking so rude to your users, you are casting quite a 
negative light onto the project. Maybe you want to think about it some 
other time..



Look,

The integrity and bravery Ladar Levison has shown in his fight is impressive. He has 
definitely earned enough "cred" to restart his business outside the US and be 
very successful, but my hope is that he does not.

We should celebrate Ladar for making the decision to put himself at risk in 
order to protect his users, but I think we should be careful not to forget that 
Ladar was forced to make that decision because the security of Lavabit was all 
a complete and total hand wave.   There are already technologies such as PGP, 
S/MIME, smart cards, and the dozens of other ways we can have secure email 
without relying on a trusted third party such as Lavabit.

Lavabit could respond to a demand for plaintext, if Ladar were willing to do so 
(and in the end, he was, for a particular user); on the other hand, Google 
cannot give anyone access to the plaintexts of S/MIME encrypted messages that I 
send through their servers because of technical barriers. That is the point of 
doing your encryption locally, and that is why security and privacy are not, 
and never will be, a service.(*)

This wasn't untested water, either. The exact same thing happened to Hushmail 
in 2007 for the exact same reason, and should have been evidence enough that 
the model isn't viable

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Walter Parker]

Sorry. I'll stop.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Pim van Stam  wrote:

> All,
>
> Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
> This endless discussion would be reason for me to unsubscribe and that's
> not the goal of the list i guess.
>
> Regards, Pim
>
>
> On 9 okt. 2013, at 22:26, Thinker Rix wrote:
>
> > Hi Walter,
> >
> > On 2013-10-09 21:53, Walter Parker wrote:
> >> To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question
> reads a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many people
> would object to the question at the start because it implies that the
> people being asked the question has done something wrong. Watching the
> reactions to political debates shows that asking the question can be enough
> to get a sizable amount of the audience to think the answer is yes, even
> when no proof is ever given that something happened.
> >
> > Interesting what all kinds of different things you do interpret into my
> question.
> > By my comprehension I just asked simple but important question and did
> this quite straight-forwardly.
> >
> >>
> >> Then when the question was deleted, you demanded that pfSense take a
> stand on it.
> >
> > Yes. Censorship always raises questions.
> >
> >> Let me show you what it looks like from the other side:
> >>
> >> Have you planned to overthrow the government? When will you show that
> you are not plotting to kill your fellow country men?
> >> It is a simple question, when will we here something from you? I just
> ask because I want to be sure that you are not trying to kill me.
> >
> > Well, your example neglects one important aspect: pfSense is a kind of
> security software project. Asking it about it's level of security and
> integrity is a question that such a project must stand, IMHO. It is like
> asking a bank how safe my money is. Or asking Microsoft how good "Word" is
> for writing letters; while asking me about if I plan to overthrow some
> government or kill other people refers to nothing.
> >
> >> For the tool in question, pfSense, once you start questioning it, there
> is no way to get the bottom without eithering trusting the pfSense people
> (which means that the question is pointless because if you trust them,
> asking them if they have violated your trust means that you don't trust
> them) or getting an external validation (trusting another group of people
> or doing the work yourself).
> >
> > I guess for anybody related to computer security it is a must to
> question anything anytime and take nothing for granted. You should question
> everything any time and any player in this domain should accept any
> questions any time, IMHO.
> >
> >> FYI, there is a long history on the Internet of people asking simple
> "innocent " question, not to get actually answers, but to cause trouble by
> causing the effect described at the beginning of my email (these are called
> trolls).
> >
> > What trouble do you refer to? I only read some aggressive/ snappy
> answers which - frankly - I find pretty awkward reactions to my simple
> question.
> >
> > Regards
> > Thinker Rix
> > ___
> > List mailing list
> > List@lists.pfsense.org
> > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Walter Parker]

But, your initial question was not "What level of security and integrity is
provided by pfSense?" or "How do judge the safety and security of pfSense?"

Your question was "Has pfSense been compromised by Big Brother?"

In the context of your Bank  question it reads more like "Have you been
robbed yet?" or "Are you working with crooks?" and not "How safe is my
money?"
For Microsoft it reads "How broken is Word", not "How good is Word?" Or
closer to the question "Are you in bed with the NSA", not "How safe are are
Word documents from others?"

Most people are happy to engage in questions of the form "Tell about what
your product does to solve/fix the problem?" and consider questions of the
form "Have you sold out to the NSA?" or "How broken is your product?" to be
insulting.

I ask you "How broken are you?" It is a simple question, what is your
response? Do you feel at all insulted by that question.

You seem to be missing the idea that the context of the question matters.
Do some research on the parse "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and
tell me if you would be upset if someone asked you that question.



Walter





On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:

> Hi Walter,
>
>
> On 2013-10-09 21:53, Walter Parker wrote:
>
>> To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question
>> reads a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many people
>> would object to the question at the start because it implies that the
>> people being asked the question has done something wrong. Watching the
>> reactions to political debates shows that asking the question can be enough
>> to get a sizable amount of the audience to think the answer is yes, even
>> when no proof is ever given that something happened.
>>
>
> Interesting what all kinds of different things you do interpret into my
> question.
> By my comprehension I just asked simple but important question and did
> this quite straight-forwardly.
>
>
>
>> Then when the question was deleted, you demanded that pfSense take a
>> stand on it.
>>
>
> Yes. Censorship always raises questions.
>
>
>  Let me show you what it looks like from the other side:
>>
>> Have you planned to overthrow the government? When will you show that you
>> are not plotting to kill your fellow country men?
>> It is a simple question, when will we here something from you? I just ask
>> because I want to be sure that you are not trying to kill me.
>>
>
> Well, your example neglects one important aspect: pfSense is a kind of
> security software project. Asking it about it's level of security and
> integrity is a question that such a project must stand, IMHO. It is like
> asking a bank how safe my money is. Or asking Microsoft how good "Word" is
> for writing letters; while asking me about if I plan to overthrow some
> government or kill other people refers to nothing.
>
>
>  For the tool in question, pfSense, once you start questioning it, there
>> is no way to get the bottom without eithering trusting the pfSense people
>> (which means that the question is pointless because if you trust them,
>> asking them if they have violated your trust means that you don't trust
>> them) or getting an external validation (trusting another group of people
>> or doing the work yourself).
>>
>
> I guess for anybody related to computer security it is a must to question
> anything anytime and take nothing for granted. You should question
> everything any time and any player in this domain should accept any
> questions any time, IMHO.
>
>
>  FYI, there is a long history on the Internet of people asking simple
>> "innocent " question, not to get actually answers, but to cause trouble by
>> causing the effect described at the beginning of my email (these are called
>> trolls).
>>
>
> What trouble do you refer to? I only read some aggressive/ snappy answers
> which - frankly - I find pretty awkward reactions to my simple question.
>
>
> Regards
> Thinker Rix
> __**_
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/**mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Pim van Stam]

All,

Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
This endless discussion would be reason for me to unsubscribe and that's not 
the goal of the list i guess.

Regards, Pim


On 9 okt. 2013, at 22:26, Thinker Rix wrote:

> Hi Walter,
> 
> On 2013-10-09 21:53, Walter Parker wrote:
>> To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question reads 
>> a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many people would 
>> object to the question at the start because it implies that the people being 
>> asked the question has done something wrong. Watching the reactions to 
>> political debates shows that asking the question can be enough to get a 
>> sizable amount of the audience to think the answer is yes, even when no 
>> proof is ever given that something happened.
> 
> Interesting what all kinds of different things you do interpret into my 
> question.
> By my comprehension I just asked simple but important question and did this 
> quite straight-forwardly.
> 
>> 
>> Then when the question was deleted, you demanded that pfSense take a stand 
>> on it.
> 
> Yes. Censorship always raises questions.
> 
>> Let me show you what it looks like from the other side:
>> 
>> Have you planned to overthrow the government? When will you show that you 
>> are not plotting to kill your fellow country men?
>> It is a simple question, when will we here something from you? I just ask 
>> because I want to be sure that you are not trying to kill me.
> 
> Well, your example neglects one important aspect: pfSense is a kind of 
> security software project. Asking it about it's level of security and 
> integrity is a question that such a project must stand, IMHO. It is like 
> asking a bank how safe my money is. Or asking Microsoft how good "Word" is 
> for writing letters; while asking me about if I plan to overthrow some 
> government or kill other people refers to nothing.
> 
>> For the tool in question, pfSense, once you start questioning it, there is 
>> no way to get the bottom without eithering trusting the pfSense people 
>> (which means that the question is pointless because if you trust them, 
>> asking them if they have violated your trust means that you don't trust 
>> them) or getting an external validation (trusting another group of people or 
>> doing the work yourself).
> 
> I guess for anybody related to computer security it is a must to question 
> anything anytime and take nothing for granted. You should question everything 
> any time and any player in this domain should accept any questions any time, 
> IMHO.
> 
>> FYI, there is a long history on the Internet of people asking simple 
>> "innocent " question, not to get actually answers, but to cause trouble by 
>> causing the effect described at the beginning of my email (these are called 
>> trolls).
> 
> What trouble do you refer to? I only read some aggressive/ snappy answers 
> which - frankly - I find pretty awkward reactions to my simple question.
> 
> Regards
> Thinker Rix
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Ian Bowers]

Is ideas on how to secure yourself and your network the sort of thing
you're looking for?  A plan or a sense of direction, something like that?
 Because you've been focusing on things that do achieve these ends.  How
can the pfSense community help you solve your pfSense related problem, or
was it just a question you had that has since been answered?

-Ian



On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 22:11, Ian Bowers wrote:
>
>> You got your answer of "no" a while back.  But you're still talking.
>>  What are you going to do with the answer now that you have it?  What's
>> YOUR plan?
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>
> - Well, actually it was not s long ago that I got a clear answer
> - Commonly I talk as much as i like to
> - I still don't know what to do with the answer
> - I have no plan
>
> Thinker Rix
>
> __**_
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/**mailman/listinfo/list
>
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hi Walter,

On 2013-10-09 21:53, Walter Parker wrote:
To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question 
reads a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many 
people would object to the question at the start because it implies 
that the people being asked the question has done something wrong. 
Watching the reactions to political debates shows that asking the 
question can be enough to get a sizable amount of the audience to 
think the answer is yes, even when no proof is ever given that 
something happened.


Interesting what all kinds of different things you do interpret into my 
question.
By my comprehension I just asked simple but important question and did 
this quite straight-forwardly.




Then when the question was deleted, you demanded that pfSense take a 
stand on it.


Yes. Censorship always raises questions.


Let me show you what it looks like from the other side:

Have you planned to overthrow the government? When will you show that 
you are not plotting to kill your fellow country men?
It is a simple question, when will we here something from you? I just 
ask because I want to be sure that you are not trying to kill me.


Well, your example neglects one important aspect: pfSense is a kind of 
security software project. Asking it about it's level of security and 
integrity is a question that such a project must stand, IMHO. It is like 
asking a bank how safe my money is. Or asking Microsoft how good "Word" 
is for writing letters; while asking me about if I plan to overthrow 
some government or kill other people refers to nothing.


For the tool in question, pfSense, once you start questioning it, 
there is no way to get the bottom without eithering trusting the 
pfSense people (which means that the question is pointless because if 
you trust them, asking them if they have violated your trust means 
that you don't trust them) or getting an external validation (trusting 
another group of people or doing the work yourself).


I guess for anybody related to computer security it is a must to 
question anything anytime and take nothing for granted. You should 
question everything any time and any player in this domain should accept 
any questions any time, IMHO.


FYI, there is a long history on the Internet of people asking simple 
"innocent " question, not to get actually answers, but to cause 
trouble by causing the effect described at the beginning of my email 
(these are called trolls).


What trouble do you refer to? I only read some aggressive/ snappy 
answers which - frankly - I find pretty awkward reactions to my simple 
question.


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Walter Parker]

Also, per the founder's statements, this was not the first request. He had
"helped" the government with requests for information about other users in
the past...

See the latest Wired/Ars Tech write ups for what was different this time.


Walter


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:16 PM, David Ross wrote:

> On 10/9/13 11:56 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:
>
>> 1. Recently they forced the small encrypted-email-service "Lavabit" to
>> comply with them (hand out their SSL-masterkeys & install a "black-box"
>> at their premises). Lavabit did not agree - and they shut him down.
>>
>
> Actually "they" didn't "shut him down". Per news reports and the founder's
> statements.
>
> You can read the details and fact if you want.
>
> David
>
> __**_
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/**mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[David Ross]

On 10/9/13 11:56 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

1. Recently they forced the small encrypted-email-service "Lavabit" to
comply with them (hand out their SSL-masterkeys & install a "black-box"
at their premises). Lavabit did not agree - and they shut him down.


Actually "they" didn't "shut him down". Per news reports and the 
founder's statements.


You can read the details and fact if you want.

David
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 22:11, Ian Bowers wrote:
You got your answer of "no" a while back.  But you're still talking. 
 What are you going to do with the answer now that you have it? 
 What's YOUR plan?


-Ian


- Well, actually it was not s long ago that I got a clear answer
- Commonly I talk as much as i like to
- I still don't know what to do with the answer
- I have no plan

Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:53:24PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:

> Also, the source of git would also reveal a problem when examined. To get 
> around that one starts hypothesizing the sort of globe-spanning conspiracy 
> against which one might as well give up ("well, maybe all my compilers (not 
> just gcc, all of them) are also backdoored to backdoor themselves, and each 
> other if you cross-compile, then backdoor git too...”).

Yeah, we know our Ken Thompson and about the (known) attempted backdoor 
insertions.
 
> pfSense is based on FreeBSD.  What if FreeBSD was backdoored by the NSA or 
> other?   How would you know?

pfSense is a great deal more than FreeBSD. If you want to reduce the attack 
surface,
or just amount of machinery to review, less is definitely more. /tmp/rules.debug
is small enough to eyeball and deploy somewhere else. That else will be 
increasingly
involving really open hardware, and compartments formally verified (see seL4 & 
Co).
 
> See?  just useless ego stroking, and a lot of resultant heat, rather than 
> solutions to problems.
> 
> 
> Can we get back to pfSense now?

I'm interested into building a trustable network tap, to get a good feel of
what goes on my networks. Apart from the usual mirrored switch port (and
reliance on whatever the firmware is professing it is doing) how can pfSense
help me with that? It used to have a transparent bridge mode, is that still
in there somewhere?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Ian Bowers]

You got your answer of "no" a while back.  But you're still talking.  What
are you going to do with the answer now that you have it?  What's YOUR plan?

-Ian


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 20:16, Gé Weijers wrote:
>
>> I think it's unlikely that ESF was even asked to cooperate, but I don't
>> believe a denial is all that useful under the circumstances, and asking for
>> it again and again is obnoxious.
>>
>
> Having thought about it again and again, I would like to feedback to you
> that your act of calling it "obnoxious" to pose as simple question about if
> a security software project is still secure or has been undermined by the
> government already, seems to be a clear indication of self-censorship...
>
> Self-censorship is what you get, when you suppress peoples by
> surveillance..
>
> __**_
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/**mailman/listinfo/list
>
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 20:16, Gé Weijers wrote:
I think it's unlikely that ESF was even asked to cooperate, but I 
don't believe a denial is all that useful under the circumstances, and 
asking for it again and again is obnoxious.


Having thought about it again and again, I would like to feedback to you 
that your act of calling it "obnoxious" to pose as simple question about 
if a security software project is still secure or has been undermined by 
the government already, seems to be a clear indication of self-censorship...


Self-censorship is what you get, when you suppress peoples by surveillance..
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:17:25PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:

> > Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.
> 
> The situation did not change with the Snowden revelations.  Anyone following 
> along has known what was going on for at least the last decade.

The difference is between having a theory, or having it confirmed by
evidence. The disclosures changed the confidence level of a large
number of people, some of the cryptographers, security professionals, 
or in general people concerned with opsec, and forced them into finally 
doing something. That is a net good thing. At the very least, we'll
get a lot more of hardened systems overall, especially where it
matters.
 
> The only thing that has changed is that now outrage has become popular.

Outrage by itself is useless, unless it's an amplifier, and results in
political action, or at least increases the activism background.
 
> How many of you people now questioning pfSense understand that Edward Snowden 
> despised classified leaks in back in 2009, and that he was not always the 
> champion of transparency that he has apparently become.

Thank you for this information. It doesn't really matter about the origins
of the leaks, or the motivation behind it, true or professed, just the end 
result. 
 
> ArsTechnica published IRC chats where he railed against a New York Times 
> story about the U.S. rejecting an Israeli request for aid to attack an 
> Iranian nuclear site and the United States' covert efforts to sabotage Iran's 
> nuclear program.
> 
> "Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. they're like wikileaks," he 
> said in the chat.
> 
> "they're just reporting, dude," said another user.
> 
> "moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?" he 
> said. "those people should be shot in the balls."
> 
> Snowden, in the chat, also criticized reporting on classified information:
> 
> "is it unethical to report on the government's intrigue?" asked a user in the 
> chat.
> "VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no." he responded.
> 
> "meh. national security." responded the user.
> "Um, YS.that shit is classified for a reason," he said. "it's not 
> because "oh we hope our citizens don't find out. it's because "this shit 
> won't work if iran knows what we're doing."
> 
> "I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable," Snowden said.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/3/
> 
> 
> >> It doesn’t contribute anything to the project.
> > 
> > It clarifies a few things. Please don't knee-jerk about it, this is not 
> > going to improve things in any way.
> 
> So “be a pussy” is your answer to handle this?

No need to know. I don't know on what kind of the fence you are, but you're
being a part of the project, and it's important to meet the right tone when
responding to inquiries, even if you consider them meritless. 
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Walter Parker]

To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question reads
a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many people would
object to the question at the start because it implies that the people
being asked the question has done something wrong. Watching the reactions
to political debates shows that asking the question can be enough to get a
sizable amount of the audience to think the answer is yes, even when no
proof is ever given that something happened.

Then when the question was deleted, you demanded that pfSense take a stand
on it.

Let me show you what it looks like from the other side:

Have you planned to overthrow the government? When will you show that you
are not plotting to kill your fellow country men?

It is a simple question, when will we here something from you? I just ask
because I want to be sure that you are not trying to kill me.


For the tool in question, pfSense, once you start questioning it, there is
no way to get the bottom without eithering trusting the pfSense people
(which means that the question is pointless because if you trust them,
asking them if they have violated your trust means that you don't trust
them) or getting an external validation (trusting another group of people
or doing the work yourself).

FYI, there is a long history on the Internet of people asking simple
"innocent " question, not to get actually answers, but to cause trouble by
causing the effect described at the beginning of my email (these are called
trolls).



Walter



On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 20:22, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:
>>
>>  Hello Jim!
>>>
>>> On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
 IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the
 question in stroking their own ego.

>>> This is already the second time that you insult me indirectly.
>>>
>> It’s amusing that you don’t understand that you threw the first stone
>> here.
>>
>
> This is correct. I do not understand where I am supposed to have thrown
> any stones or insult anybody, indeed. If you would like to show me, I would
> really be thankful.
>
>
>  May I ask again if you are an staff member of Electric Sheep Fencing LLC?
>>>
>> Staff members get paid.
>>
>> I’m a co-owner, and have never taken a dime from ESF (or BSDP).
>>
>> jim
>>
>
> Thank you for the info.
>
> Regards
> Thinker Rix
>
> __**_
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/**mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 19:42, Adam Thompson wrote:
Argh. Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you) 
would immediately be committing a federal crime.
Considering the consequences, no-one in their right mind would ever 
confirm that they had been approached or received a NSL.
Well, some people do, because they have principles and values and prefer 
to not bow to any suppressors; for example Ladar Levison of Lavabit 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit).
He could just had have complied and he would still run his company today 
- offering encrypted email to his customers, that in reality is not 
really encrypted anymore; but he chose to stand up and blow the whistle. 
Great guy.


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> We all know that the governments currently force on a daily base one company 
> after the other to comply to their New World 
> Order-Orwellian-global-surveillance phantasies and make them compromise their 
> software or service. So I find it absolutely NECESSARY to clear out if 
> pfSense has fallen (already) to them, or not. Network security is THE major 
> reason for using pfSense. So it should be the most important question for all 
> of us, isn't it?
> 
> By my comprehension, everyone who says that this is a silly question or that 
> it is some unimportant thought no one should further bother thinking about in 
> detail, is either confused, or trying to conceal something.

You just want to have a discussion.  Perhaps it makes you feel important, I 
don’t know.  Your Alex Jonesian “New World Odor” rhetoric is tiring.

Your NECESSARY discussion is not, because in the end analysis the discussion 
you want to have is orthogonal to the subject.   You should instead only depend 
on you and your tools to ensure your security.  Asking me (or Chris, or Jamie) 
to answer the question puts everyone in a position where nothing can be 
learned, so it is useless, rather than NECESSARY.

Until you understand and accept this, your messages are mere platitudes.

Look,

The integrity and bravery Ladar Levison has shown in his fight is impressive. 
He has definitely earned enough "cred" to restart his business outside the US 
and be very successful, but my hope is that he does not.

We should celebrate Ladar for making the decision to put himself at risk in 
order to protect his users, but I think we should be careful not to forget that 
Ladar was forced to make that decision because the security of Lavabit was all 
a complete and total hand wave.   There are already technologies such as PGP, 
S/MIME, smart cards, and the dozens of other ways we can have secure email 
without relying on a trusted third party such as Lavabit.

Lavabit could respond to a demand for plaintext, if Ladar were willing to do so 
(and in the end, he was, for a particular user); on the other hand, Google 
cannot give anyone access to the plaintexts of S/MIME encrypted messages that I 
send through their servers because of technical barriers. That is the point of 
doing your encryption locally, and that is why security and privacy are not, 
and never will be, a service.(*)

This wasn't untested water, either. The exact same thing happened to Hushmail 
in 2007 for the exact same reason, and should have been evidence enough that 
the model isn't viable, even for a non-US company.   
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/encrypted-e-mai/

So again, I think we should definitely support Ladar as a person, but we also 
need to be careful not to confuse that with supporting Lavabit, (the company) 
which was a very real danger that should never be repeated again (again).

How you interpret this and subsequently apply it to ESF and/or pfSense is up to 
you.

Jim
(*) if you think about it for very long, it also shows that Snowden is not the 
Ür-hacker than the press wants to make him.   His communications via Lavabit 
only gave the appearance of security, and he wasn’t smart enough to understand 
same.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 20:18, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:


Hello Jim!

Thank you for your answer.

On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:

No, the NSA hasn’t approached us about pfSense, or adding a “back door”, or 
anything similar.  Nor has anyone else.

Do you work for Electric Sheep Fencing LLC, i.e. is this the "official" answer 
of the company to my question?

There are three individuals that own ESF, and can speak for the company.

Chris Buechler
Jamie Thompson (my wife)
Me.


Thank you for this information.


how official do you want an answer to be?


Since you are a co-owner of ESF who is entitled to speak for the 
company, as you say, I believe that your answer is as official as it 
gets and I am thankful for this clear statement of yours! Thank you very 
much.


I only wonder what the aggression was needed for.

Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 19:49, Christian Borchert wrote:

Linus Torvalds was asked the same question in a Q&A session about linux.  He 
said 'no' while nodding his head up and down.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Exactly. Frightening, isn't it?
Awkwardly the audience started laughing about that...

Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 20:22, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:


Hello Jim!

On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:

IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in 
stroking their own ego.

This is already the second time that you insult me indirectly.

It’s amusing that you don’t understand that you threw the first stone here.


This is correct. I do not understand where I am supposed to have thrown 
any stones or insult anybody, indeed. If you would like to show me, I 
would really be thankful.



May I ask again if you are an staff member of Electric Sheep Fencing LLC?

Staff members get paid.

I’m a co-owner, and have never taken a dime from ESF (or BSDP).

jim


Thank you for the info.

Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 20:16, Gé Weijers wrote:
Some people in this discussion assume that the principals of ESF could 
not be forced to lie by the US government, under threat of lawsuits, 
financial ruin, incarceration and not seeing their children grow up.


Gee, quite a frightening regime. Someone should tell the USA to send 
some of their troops in there to remove this suppressing regime and free 
those poor devils over there by spreading some of their "democracy", as 
they do all over the planet..  Ops, I think I got something wrong here ;-)



I find this assumption awfully naive


Do you thinks so? Me, not, though it might seem so at first sight.


I think it's unlikely that ESF was even asked to cooperate,


Interesting thought, may I ask you why you think so?


but I don't believe a denial is all that useful under the circumstances


What do you mean? It would not be "useful" not to comply, but better to 
just compromise that what you do so that you are left in peace?



and asking for it again and again


Actually I only asked once


is obnoxious.


Since when can a naive question, as you called it, be obnoxious? And why 
do you think asking a security software project if it is secure is 
obnoxious? I think it is the most important question of all.


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> By my comprehension, everyone who says that this is a silly question or that 
> it is some unimportant thought no one should further bother thinking about in 
> detail, is either confused, or trying to conceal something.

Or has better things to do with their time than answering questions which don’t 
solve problems.

Jim

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 20:04, Walter Parker wrote:
>> About that made in the USA thing, the NSA has deals with overseas companies 
>> as well...
>> 
>> Plus, the GCHQ and several other foreign spy agency's have done similar 
>> things, so if you starting asking, you discover that the major governments 
>> are trying to do this and have succeed more often than we would like.
> 
> Yes, it is horrifying.
> 
>> Also, the whole "We have to ask to ask the question to get the denial on 
>> record" only matters for the government or people with lots of money. The 
>> Government can sue you/arrest you for a lie, but do "you" have enough money 
>> to pay for lawsuits against a company? Most lawyers want money upfront 
>> unless you have clear suit against a company with lots of money.
>> 
>> When was the last (or even first time) that a company was sued and lost to a 
>> private party for something like this, outside of class action lawsuits
> 
> I do not want to sue or otherwise harm anybody.
> 
> I only asked a very simple question and now read the answers. Very 
> interesting answers, I think.

Not interesting, just simple ego stroking.

As for those who want to read the source to find bugs …

Back in 2003 Linux used a system called BitKeeper to store the master copy of 
the Linux source code. If a developer wanted to propose a modification to the 
Linux code, they would submit their proposed change, and it would go through an 
organized approval process to decide whether the change would be accepted into 
the master code. Every change to the master code would come with a short 
explanation, which always included a pointer to the record of its approval.

But some people didn’t like BitKeeper, so a second copy of the source code was 
kept so that developers could get the code via another code system called CVS. 
The CVS copy of the code was a direct clone of the primary BitKeeper copy.

But on Nov. 5, 2003, Larry McVoy noticed that there was a code change in the 
CVS copy that did not have a pointer to a record of approval. Investigation 
showed that the change had never been approved and, stranger yet, that this 
change did not appear in the primary BitKeeper repository at all. Further 
investigation determined that someone had apparently broken in (electronically) 
to the CVS server and inserted this change.
What did the change do? This is where it gets really interesting. The change 
modified the code of a Linux function called wait4, which a program could use 
to wait for something to happen. Specifically, it added these two lines of code:

if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
retval = -EINVAL;

[Exercise for readers who know the C programming language: What is unusual 
about this code? Answer appears below.]

A casual reading by anyone less than expert would interpret this as innocuous 
error-checking code to make wait4 return an error code when wait4 was called in 
a certain way that was forbidden by the documentation. But a really careful 
(and somewhat) expert reader would notice that, near the end of the first line, 
it said “= 0” rather than “== 0”. The normal thing to write in code like this 
is “== 0”, which tests whether the user ID of the currently running code 
(current->uid) is equal to zero, without modifying the user ID. But what 
actually appears is “= 0”, which has the effect of setting the user ID to zero.

Setting the user ID to zero is a problem because user ID number zero is the 
“root” user, which is allowed to do absolutely anything it wants—to access all 
data, change the behavior of all code, and to compromise entirely the security 
of all parts of the system. So the effect of this code is to give root 
privileges to any piece of software that called wait4 in a particular way that 
is supposed to be invalid. In other words … it’s a classic backdoor.
This is a very clever piece of work. It looks like innocuous error checking, 
but it’s really a back door. And it was slipped into the code outside the 
normal approval process, to avoid any possibility that the approval process 
would notice what was up.

Could this have been an NSA attack? Maybe. But there were many others who had 
the skill and motivation to carry out this attack. Unless somebody confesses, 
or a smoking-gun document turns up, we’ll never know.

We still dont have a report on the kernel.org hack of 2011.  Why not?

Many people say, "calm down, its git they can’t have inserted backdoors etc 
without messing up the git history/changelog/hashes/whatever". But what if git 
was modified and backdoored previously to hide some objects/changes? How would 
such an attack work? Lets say you discover a problem in git, which allows you 
to omit changesets in its output. How would that work to backdoor the kernel?

Older versions of git would tell you the hashes were wrong. Implementations of 
git in other languages would tell you the hashes were wrong. Manually c

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 17:20, Thinker Rix wrote:

Dear pfsense-team,

I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government 
officials, such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include 
any backdoors, spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.


Hello all!

Thank you for all your reactions so far!

Reading the whole thread, I can't help but feel two things:

1. Quite a bit of aggression of some users. Why? Because I asked a 
simple and "naively" straight-forward question? Strange, isn't it?

2. A "nothing to worry here, just continue walking" attitude of some others

I think this is strange.

And by the way: It is not only "some" question, but *the* question, 
actually, if someone remembers what we are talking about here! We are 
talking about a network security software - so what on earth is more 
normal than asking if this software *is* secure!? Should we all just 
look away and continue our business as usual, as if nothing has happened 
the last year out there on the globe?


We all know that the governments currently force on a daily base one 
company after the other to comply to their New World 
Order-Orwellian-global-surveillance phantasies and make them compromise 
their software or service. So I find it absolutely NECESSARY to clear 
out if pfSense has fallen (already) to them, or not. Network security is 
THE major reason for using pfSense. So it should be the most important 
question for all of us, isn't it?


By my comprehension, everyone who says that this is a silly question or 
that it is some unimportant thought no one should further bother 
thinking about in detail, is either confused, or trying to conceal 
something.


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 20:04, Walter Parker wrote:
About that made in the USA thing, the NSA has deals with overseas 
companies as well...


Plus, the GCHQ and several other foreign spy agency's have done 
similar things, so if you starting asking, you discover that the major 
governments are trying to do this and have succeed more often than we 
would like.


Yes, it is horrifying.

Also, the whole "We have to ask to ask the question to get the denial 
on record" only matters for the government or people with lots of 
money. The Government can sue you/arrest you for a lie, but do "you" 
have enough money to pay for lawsuits against a company? Most lawyers 
want money upfront unless you have clear suit against a company with 
lots of money.


When was the last (or even first time) that a company was sued and 
lost to a private party for something like this, outside of class 
action lawsuits


I do not want to sue or otherwise harm anybody.

I only asked a very simple question and now read the answers. Very 
interesting answers, I think.


Regards
Thinker Rix

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> Hello Jim!
> 
> On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in 
>> stroking their own ego.
> 
> This is already the second time that you insult me indirectly.

It’s amusing that you don’t understand that you threw the first stone here.

> May I ask again if you are an staff member of Electric Sheep Fencing LLC?

Staff members get paid.

I’m a co-owner, and have never taken a dime from ESF (or BSDP).

jim

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hi Adam,

On 2013-10-09 19:42, Adam Thompson wrote:

Which makes asking the question quite irrelevant.

I do not think so.

Greetings
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> Hello Jim!
> 
> Thank you for your answer.
> 
> On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> No, the NSA hasn’t approached us about pfSense, or adding a “back door”, or 
>> anything similar.  Nor has anyone else.
> 
> Do you work for Electric Sheep Fencing LLC, i.e. is this the "official" 
> answer of the company to my question?

There are three individuals that own ESF, and can speak for the company.

Chris Buechler
Jamie Thompson (my wife)
Me.

how official do you want an answer to be?



___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:50:53PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
> 
>> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in 
>> stroking their own ego.
> 
> Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.

The situation did not change with the Snowden revelations.  Anyone following 
along has known what was going on for at least the last decade.

The only thing that has changed is that now outrage has become popular.

The New York Times’ James Risen and Laura Poitras  penned an article a couple 
weeks ago titled ‘NSA Gathers Data on Social Connections of U.S. Citizens” in 
which they make the claims based on documents leaked by “Edward Snowden”.

“… the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of 
data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that 
can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their 
traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly 
disclosed documents and interviews with officials…
… according to documents provided by Edward J. Snowden…
… The new disclosures add to the growing body of knowledge in recent months 
about the N.S.A.’s access to and use of private information concerning 
Americans” New York Times

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/nsa-examines-social-networks-of-us-citizens.html?pagewanted=all


 William E. Binney (perhaps you should google him) was speaking directly to 
Laura Poitras when he said these words slightly over a year ago:

“The purpose is to be able to monitor what people are doing.  You build social 
networks for everybody that then turns into the graph then you index all that 
data to the graph which means you can then pull out a “community” with an 
outline of the life of everyone in the community. And if you carried it over 
time from 2001 up you have 10 years of their life you can lay out in a 
timeline. That involves anybody in the country” 

William E. Binney, Aug. 2012,  speaking to Laura Poitras in HER documentary 
"The Program"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-security-agencys-domestic-spying-program.html?_r=0

Do you think she forgot this interview while she was writing an article in the 
New York Times last month that she was told this “groundbreaking” revelation 
long ago?

Because she never mentions Binney in her new article.  Why?  Seriously, ask 
yourself why.

She also doesn’t mention key things like “Stellar Wind” or NarusInsight.  These 
are real programs.
For all we know, Pyramid is nothing more than a Powerpoint deck created for a 
psyop purposes.  Maybe it’s real, and maybe this is all a smokescreen for 
something else.

How many of you people now questioning pfSense understand that Edward Snowden 
despised classified leaks in back in 2009, and that he was not always the 
champion of transparency that he has apparently become.

ArsTechnica published IRC chats where he railed against a New York Times story 
about the U.S. rejecting an Israeli request for aid to attack an Iranian 
nuclear site and the United States' covert efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear 
program.

"Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. they're like wikileaks," he said 
in the chat.

"they're just reporting, dude," said another user.

"moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?" he said. 
"those people should be shot in the balls."

Snowden, in the chat, also criticized reporting on classified information:

"is it unethical to report on the government's intrigue?" asked a user in the 
chat.
"VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no." he responded.

"meh. national security." responded the user.
"Um, YS.that shit is classified for a reason," he said. "it's not 
because "oh we hope our citizens don't find out. it's because "this shit won't 
work if iran knows what we're doing."

"I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable," Snowden said.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/3/


>> It doesn’t contribute anything to the project.
> 
> It clarifies a few things. Please don't knee-jerk about it, this is not going 
> to improve things in any way.

So “be a pussy” is your answer to handle this?

jim



___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Gé Weijers]

Some people in this discussion assume that the principals of ESF could not
be forced to lie by the US government, under threat of lawsuits, financial
ruin, incarceration and not seeing their children grow up. I find this
assumption awfully naive.

I think it's unlikely that ESF was even asked to cooperate, but I don't
believe a denial is all that useful under the circumstances, and asking for
it again and again is obnoxious.

Gé


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jeppe Øland  wrote:

> >> I also understand your point though, since the software is OSS, it
> should
> >> be fairly easy to check for backdoors :)
> >
> > Yes, you *could* check. But does anybody? Check the *entire* code and
> > get the big picture?
>
> Realistically speaking, that wouldn't be enough anyways.
>
> What is the percentage of pfSense users that download source and build
> it themselves vs. download the prebuilt binary?
>
> Regards,
> -Jeppe
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
Gé
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hello Jim!

On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the 
question in stroking their own ego.


This is already the second time that you insult me indirectly. May I ask 
again if you are an staff member of Electric Sheep Fencing LLC?


Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jeppe Øland]

>> I also understand your point though, since the software is OSS, it should
>> be fairly easy to check for backdoors :)
>
> Yes, you *could* check. But does anybody? Check the *entire* code and
> get the big picture?

Realistically speaking, that wouldn't be enough anyways.

What is the percentage of pfSense users that download source and build
it themselves vs. download the prebuilt binary?

Regards,
-Jeppe
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Walter Parker]

About that made in the USA thing, the NSA has deals with overseas companies
as well...

Plus, the GCHQ and several other foreign spy agency's have done similar
things, so if you starting asking, you discover that the major governments
are trying to do this and have succeed more often than we would like.

Also, the whole "We have to ask to ask the question to get the denial on
record" only matters for the government or people with lots of money. The
Government can sue you/arrest you for a lie, but do "you" have enough money
to pay for lawsuits against a company? Most lawyers want money upfront
unless you have clear suit against a company with lots of money.

 When was the last (or even first time) that a company was sued and lost to
a private party for something like this, outside of class action lawsuits?


Walter


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:
>
> > Argh.  Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you)
> would immediately be committing a federal crime.
>
> All assuming the company in question resides in the US, or has
> significant presence in the US. There is, of course, considerable
> strong-arming and informal co-operation going on behind the
> scenes, so geography is not exactly a good protection.
>
> I've personally given up on any commercial software, and
> moved to purely community-built tools, and will take considerable
> protection now that we know that Ft. Meade is in the business
> of hacking end users and companies.
>
> > Considering the consequences, no-one in their right mind would ever
> confirm that they had been approached or received a NSL.
> > Which makes asking the question quite irrelevant.
>
> The question is useful, since it produced this thread.
> As I suggested, if you're not trusting pfSense, you can
> always manually verify the rules generated by it, and
> load it into a pf-speaking device you consider trustable.
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hello Jim!

Thank you for your answer.

On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
No, the NSA hasn't approached us about pfSense, or adding a "back 
door", or anything similar.  Nor has anyone else.


Do you work for Electric Sheep Fencing LLC, i.e. is this the "official" 
answer of the company to my question?


Thank you
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hi Jim,

thank you for your quick reply!

On 2013-10-09 18:59, Jim Pingle wrote:

On 10/9/2013 11:20 AM, Paul Kunicki wrote:

I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
cooperation from these guys. Does anyone else care to comment ?

As far as I'm aware, nobody has contacted us, but if they did I may not
know. They aren't really interested in end-user firewalls, they want
infrastructure routers.


Do you think that there might be a chance to get an "official statement" 
of ESF, maybe without any "ifs and buts"?
This would really help in this uncertain times that we all have to 
suffer currently.


Thank you,
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:46 PM, David Burgess  wrote:

> 
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> 
> So asking the question is stupid(*), because a lie is indistinguishable from 
> the truth.
> 
> 
> I disagree on that point. Even if one is sure to get a "no" answer, 
> regardless of the truth, it is still useful to ask the question for at least 
> two reasons I can think of:
> 
> 1. To get the response on record. The responders can be held accountable 
> should it ever come out they knowingly lied.
> 
> 2. To examine the response for credibility. A simple yes or no answer might 
> not yield much, but such is rarely the case. If the answer is delayed, 
> unclear, couched in a bunch of rhetoric or handwaving, delayed or avoided, 
> then any or all of these things will be taken into account by those asking 
> the question or observing the response. This is a principle that is 
> understood by courts of law, psychologists, interrogators, and people of 
> intuition.

IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in 
stroking their own ego.

It doesn’t contribute anything to the project.



___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:50:53PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:

> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in 
> stroking their own ego.

Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.
 
> It doesn’t contribute anything to the project.

It clarifies a few things. Please don't knee-jerk about it,
this is not going to improve things in any way.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:

> Argh.  Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you) would 
> immediately be committing a federal crime.

All assuming the company in question resides in the US, or has
significant presence in the US. There is, of course, considerable
strong-arming and informal co-operation going on behind the
scenes, so geography is not exactly a good protection.

I've personally given up on any commercial software, and
moved to purely community-built tools, and will take considerable
protection now that we know that Ft. Meade is in the business
of hacking end users and companies.

> Considering the consequences, no-one in their right mind would ever confirm 
> that they had been approached or received a NSL.
> Which makes asking the question quite irrelevant.

The question is useful, since it produced this thread.
As I suggested, if you're not trusting pfSense, you can
always manually verify the rules generated by it, and
load it into a pf-speaking device you consider trustable. 
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Christian Borchert]

Linus Torvalds was asked the same question in a Q&A session about linux.  He 
said 'no' while nodding his head up and down.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-Original Message-
From: David Burgess 
Sender: list-bounces@lists.pfsense.orgDate: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:46:10 
To: pfSense support and discussion
Reply-To: pfSense support and discussion 
Subject: Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or
others?

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[David Burgess]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jim Thompson  wrote:
>
>
> So asking the question is stupid(*), because a lie is indistinguishable
> from the truth.
>
>
I disagree on that point. Even if one is sure to get a "no" answer,
regardless of the truth, it is still useful to ask the question for at
least two reasons I can think of:

1. To get the response on record. The responders can be held accountable
should it ever come out they knowingly lied.

2. To examine the response for credibility. A simple yes or no answer might
not yield much, but such is rarely the case. If the answer is delayed,
unclear, couched in a bunch of rhetoric or handwaving, delayed or avoided,
then any or all of these things will be taken into account by those asking
the question or observing the response. This is a principle that is
understood by courts of law, psychologists, interrogators, and people of
intuition.

db
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 19:22, Walter Parker wrote:
The big problem with asking the question "Has the NSA required you to 
add a back door?" is that no small company that wants to say in 
business can or will say yes (If they do, no one will trust/use the 
product unless forced themselves). The company will agree/be forced to 
say no. How does one tell that no from an authentic no?


Exactly. But sometimes you can get the most interesting results out of 
"silly straight forward" questions. E.g. by carefully analyzing the 
reactions, or the words that are said - or not said.


Additionally as far as I have figured, the criminal authorities even 
forbid those companies to talk about things. So the most common official 
answer is: "We are not allowed to talk about it" (=Yes, we are held 
hostages by the criminal authorities).
If this should be the case, we - the community - could find a solution 
all together, e.g. by re-incorporating the project in a free country (= 
not the USA!).




Therefore, once trust is question, the only way to be sure is to do 
the self review suggested earlier...


Well, yes. But who does? Do you? Me not. Who does then?



However, from my perspective, the code in pfSense is more like to be 
secure than any commercial, closed source solution. See prior threads 
about FreeBSD security.


I *hope* that, too. But do I *know*? No.

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Adam Thompson]

Argh.  Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you) would 
immediately be committing a federal crime.
Considering the consequences, no-one in their right mind would ever confirm 
that they had been approached or received a NSL.
Which makes asking the question quite irrelevant.
-Adam

Thinker Rix  wrote:

>___
>List mailing list
>List@lists.pfsense.org
>http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

>  My main question was not if the code includes bad things, but if the company 
> behind pfSense has been approached (yet) by authorities to comply with their 
> Orwellian global police state phantasy.

already answered.  Twice.


___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

Exactly, although this rule doesn’t just apply to “small companies”.   Big 
companies have shown to just roll over and give up the customer’s data.

So asking the question is stupid(*), because a lie is indistinguishable from 
the truth.

No, the NSA hasn’t approached us about pfSense, or adding a “back door”, or 
anything similar.  Nor has anyone else.

The next step is yours.


I am told that the NSA did review a version of pfSense that was made for a 
customer which would filter SCADA protocols.  I can’t verify that or not.

Note also that someone DID once accuse OpenBSD of having a problem with it’s 
IPSEC processing, which Theo *vehemently* denied.  
http://www.informationweek.com/security/vulnerabilities/openbsd-founder-believes-fbi-built-ipsec/228900037
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129236621626462&w=2

Sam Leffler, about four years earlier, found a bug in the AH processing, which 
he fixed (in FreeBSD) and handed back to the OpenBSD.  They patched same, but 
never gave any acknowledgement to Sam.

So, maybe you should run OpenBSD.

Jim
* as it turns our, yes, Samantha, there is a Santa Clause^W^W^W^Ware stupid 
questions.


On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Walter Parker  wrote:

> The big problem with asking the question "Has the NSA required you to add a 
> back door?" is that no small company that wants to say in business can or 
> will say yes (If they do, no one will trust/use the product unless forced 
> themselves). The company will agree/be forced to say no. How does one tell 
> that no from an authentic no? 
> 
> Therefore, once trust is question, the only way to be sure is to do the self 
> review suggested earlier...
> 
> However, from my perspective, the code in pfSense is more like to be secure 
> than any commercial, closed source solution. See prior threads about FreeBSD 
> security.
> 
> 
> Walter
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Thinker Rix  wrote:
> On 2013-10-09 19:03, Jim Thompson wrote:
> (TIC mode: on)
> Sorry, but I guess the whole matter - not only concerning pfSense, but the 
> current threat to our civilization by our criminal governments as a whole - 
> is much too serious for any "TIC-modes"..
> 
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of 
> zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

Hi Peter,

On 2013-10-09 18:20, Peter van Arkel wrote:
I also understand your point though, since the software is OSS, it 
should be fairly easy to check for backdoors :)


besides the following 3 facts:

1. that I (and i guess 95% of all other users) can hardly read ANY
   serious code
2. that it should not be "fairly easy" for anyone to read the entire
   code base of such a huge project such as pfSense
3. that generally *in reality* nobody bothers to review any code
   because everyone thinks that "the huge user base of this open source
   project" surely does

.. please also keep in mind, that even reading and understanding code in 
some cases might not be sufficient, because of 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation_%28software%29


By my opinion the often proclaimed higher security of open source due to 
"everyone can 'just' read the code and check himself" is nothing more 
than a myth...
Yes, you *could* check. But does anybody? Check the *entire* code and 
get the big picture? I guess in 99% of smaller projects no one has EVER 
checked any serious amount of code - let alone the the entire code base 
- besides the developer himself...


But again back to my main question: My main question was not if the code 
includes bad things, but if the company behind pfSense has been 
approached (yet) by authorities to comply with their Orwellian global 
police state phantasy.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 12:10:00PM -0400, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> > From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers 
> > come to mind:
> > 
> > 1. Random Number generation
> > - NSA is reported to have weakened several random number generators and/or 
> > introduced vulnerabilities. 
> > - What is used in PFsense?
> 
> We use the RNG from FreeBSD, which can be assisted by hardware, assuming
> you trust the hardware.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//dev/random#FreeBSD

I've come across that when researching making one-time pads
on pfSense, using a hardware RNG.

Is there a way to have a hardware RNG (multiple, if present,
e.g. AMD Geode and HiFn in an ALIX) mix in entropy into Yarrow, 
instead of overriding it? The later behavior is definitely not
what I want.

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Walter Parker]

The big problem with asking the question "Has the NSA required you to add a
back door?" is that no small company that wants to say in business can or
will say yes (If they do, no one will trust/use the product unless forced
themselves). The company will agree/be forced to say no. How does one tell
that no from an authentic no?

Therefore, once trust is question, the only way to be sure is to do the
self review suggested earlier...

However, from my perspective, the code in pfSense is more like to be secure
than any commercial, closed source solution. See prior threads about
FreeBSD security.


Walter


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 19:03, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> (TIC mode: on)
>>
> Sorry, but I guess the whole matter - not only concerning pfSense, but the
> current threat to our civilization by our criminal governments as a whole -
> is much too serious for any "TIC-modes"..
>
> __**_
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/**mailman/listinfo/list
>



-- 
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.   -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 19:03, Jim Thompson wrote:

(TIC mode: on)


Sorry, but I guess the whole matter - not only concerning pfSense, but 
the current threat to our civilization by our criminal governments as a 
whole - is much too serious for any "TIC-modes"..
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 19:03, Jim Thompson wrote:

(TIC mode: on)
Sorry, but I guess the whole matter - not only concerning pfSense, but 
the current threat to our civilization by our criminal governments as a 
whole - is much too serious for any "TIC-modes"..

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Pingle]

On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers 
> come to mind:
> 
> 1. Random Number generation
> - NSA is reported to have weakened several random number generators and/or 
> introduced vulnerabilities. 
> - What is used in PFsense?

We use the RNG from FreeBSD, which can be assisted by hardware, assuming
you trust the hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//dev/random#FreeBSD

> 2. Crypto
> - Certain protocols have been deliberately weakened, have options that turn 
> on crypto and/or known to contain backdoors.
> 
> - a robust discussion on how to enable the "highest" standard of encryption 
> and privacy protective options would be most welcome

That is still something that is up for debate. I'm not sure anyone has
really accurately identified which are good and which might be
compromised from a cryptographic standpoint with high confidence.

There are some standards that have been called into question simply
because the NSA/DOD/etc recommend them. Are they recommending them
because they are strong, or because they have been compromised and they
want people to use them?

http://www.nsa.gov/business/programs/elliptic_curve.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_cryptography#NIST-recommended_elliptic_curves

If compromised ciphers could be positively identified, we could actively
discourage their use or disable them as needed.

The problem with doing that is compatibility and inertia. PPTP has been
broken 100%, but people still use it because they don't want to change,
management won't let them change, they have a crazy use case for it, or
simply because they don't care. We have placed a large red warning on
PPTP for the last few versions and people still keep using it, knowing
it's not much better than transmitting in the clear.

Jim
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Thompson]

(TIC mode: on)

I think it’s obvious that:

- ESF is a front for the NSA
- the acquisition which closed last year was really just about gaining control 
of a critical component of Internet infrastructure.
- the delays getting 2.1 out the door were exclusively about getting some 
last-minute backdoor code installed.  AYBAB2U, baby!

(TIC mode: off)

On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Thinker Rix  wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 18:20, Paul Kunicki wrote:
>> I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various 
>> organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has merit 
>> and deserves response
> 
> Exactly, Paul, you got my point!
> 
>> although I doubt the NSA really needs cooperation from these guys. Does 
>> anyone else care to comment ?
> 
> @your doubts about the NSA/FBI/ surveillance institution here> bothering with smaller companies such as 
> Electric Sheep Fencing LLC (formerly BSD perimeter) and their niche product 
> pfSense:
> 
> Please take these 2 things into account:
> 
> 1. Recently they forced the small encrypted-email-service "Lavabit" to comply 
> with them (hand out their SSL-masterkeys & install a "black-box" at their 
> premises). Lavabit did not agree - and they shut him down. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit. Officially they wanted to force 
> Lavabit to just hand out Edward Snowden's emails (bad enough), but in reality 
> they wanted to gain access to all emails of Lavabit by receiving the SSL 
> masterkeys and by placing the blackbox at their premises, which rendered the 
> whole service useless.
> 
> 2. Routers/Gateways/Firewalls are highly interesting for big brother. Read 
> e.g. this article "NSA Laughs at PCs, Prefers Hacking Routers and Switches" 
> (https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-September/011287.html)
> 
> So, combining those 2 facts - the fact that the NSA/FBI/etc. prefer to 
> infiltrate routers with the fact that they very well bother knocking the 
> doors of small businesses with niche products, I guess my question is quite 
> legitimate!
> 
> Greetings
> Thinker Rix
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Jim Pingle]

On 10/9/2013 11:20 AM, Paul Kunicki wrote:
> I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
> organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
> merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
> cooperation from these guys. Does anyone else care to comment ?

As far as I'm aware, nobody has contacted us, but if they did I may not
know. They aren't really interested in end-user firewalls, they want
infrastructure routers.

We had a discussion on this already a month ago.
http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/list/2013-September/004543.html

Our code is all open source. In addition to our own code, code is also
pulled from places such as FreeBSD, OpenSSL, and so on. So while our
code is clean, it might be possible that if something we depend on has a
flaw (perhaps by design in an encryption algorithm...) then it might be
carried over. Nothing intentional on our part, and if such a thing is
discovered and the offending code is fixed, we'd pull it in ASAP.

So it would be more interesting to focus on FreeBSD, OpenSSL, OpenVPN,
racoon, and other similar projects upon which we depend.

Jim
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 18:20, Paul Kunicki wrote:
I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various 
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has 
merit and deserves response


Exactly, Paul, you got my point!

although I doubt the NSA really needs cooperation from these guys. 
Does anyone else care to comment ?


@your doubts about the NSA/FBI/surveillance institution here> bothering with smaller companies such as 
Electric Sheep Fencing LLC (formerly BSD perimeter) and their niche 
product pfSense:


Please take these 2 things into account:

1. Recently they forced the small encrypted-email-service "Lavabit" to 
comply with them (hand out their SSL-masterkeys & install a "black-box" 
at their premises). Lavabit did not agree - and they shut him down. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit. Officially they wanted to force 
Lavabit to just hand out Edward Snowden's emails (bad enough), but in 
reality they wanted to gain access to all emails of Lavabit by receiving 
the SSL masterkeys and by placing the blackbox at their premises, which 
rendered the whole service useless.


2. Routers/Gateways/Firewalls are highly interesting for big brother. 
Read e.g. this article "NSA Laughs at PCs, Prefers Hacking Routers and 
Switches" 
(https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-September/011287.html)


So, combining those 2 facts - the fact that the NSA/FBI/etc. prefer to 
infiltrate routers with the fact that they very well bother knocking the 
doors of small businesses with niche products, I guess my question is 
quite legitimate!


Greetings
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:20:11AM -0400, Paul Kunicki wrote:
> I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
> organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
> merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
> cooperation from these guys. Does anyone else care to comment ?

Incorporated in the US, hence a legitimate target.

http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=714

Howdy,

If you’ve downloaded pfSense 2.1, you might have noticed that the footer has 
changed.  What used to say “BSD Perimeter” now says “ESF”.   In early Spring it 
became apparent that we should consider a reorganization of the company.  BSD 
Perimeter is still incorporated in Kentucky, but all of the directors and 
owners live in Texas.   Re-incorporating gave us chance to clean up a few 
issues, and to change the name, signaling a break with the past.

If you're really paranoid, you can always export the pf rules,
and run it on a headless FreeBSD or OpenBSD box.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Robert Guerra]

>From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers 
>come to mind:

1. Random Number generation
- NSA is reported to have weakened several random number generators and/or 
introduced vulnerabilities. 
- What is used in PFsense?

2. Crypto
- Certain protocols have been deliberately weakened, have options that turn on 
crypto and/or known to contain backdoors.


- a robust discussion on how to enable the "highest" standard of encryption and 
privacy protective options would be most welcome

Robert
--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
Email: rgue...@privaterra.org

On 2013-10-09, at 11:23 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

> On 2013-10-09 18:14, Mehma Sarja wrote:
>> Dear Worried user,
>> 
>> Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if there 
>> are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.
>> 
>> Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work onto 
>> others.
>> 
>> Mehma
> 
> @all: Please don't feed the troll.
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Thinker Rix]

On 2013-10-09 18:14, Mehma Sarja wrote:

Dear Worried user,

Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if 
there are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.


Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work 
onto others.


Mehma


@all: Please don't feed the troll.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Peter van Arkel]

> Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if
> there are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.
>
> Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work onto
> others.

To be honest, I understand the question from the worried user, 
especially if his comment is held in moderation. I also understand your 
point though, since the software is OSS, it should be fairly easy to 
check for backdoors :)


Regards,
Peter
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Paul Kunicki]

I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
cooperation from these guys. Does anyone else care to comment ?

Paul Kunicki
Network Administrator
SproutLoud Media Networks, LLC.
954-476-6211 ext.144
pkuni...@sproutloud.com


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

>  Dear pfsense-team,
> 
> today I posted the following on your blog at
> http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
>
>
> 
>
> “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
>
> October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am 
>
> Hi guys, 
>
> I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
> such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so. 
>
> Thank you 
>
> Worried User”
>
> 
>
>
> Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the
> public - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
>
> Please take a stand to this.
>
>
> Regards
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
>
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by "big brother" NSA or others?

[Mehma Sarja]

Dear Worried user,

Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if there
are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.

Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work onto
others.

Mehma





On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:

>  Dear pfsense-team,
> 
> today I posted the following on your blog at
> http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
>
>
> 
>
> “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
>
> October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am 
>
> Hi guys, 
>
> I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government officials,
> such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include any backdoors,
> spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so. 
>
> Thank you 
>
> Worried User”
>
> 
>
>
> Some minutes later I could see that my entry was not released to the
> public - but deleted by the moderator, without any further comment.
>
> Please take a stand to this.
>
>
> Regards
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
>
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list