Firewalld 1.0 Released With Big Improvements

[sdack]

I think you have long lost the thread of your thoughts if you ever had one. Anyone who knows the first thing about firewalld knows that it uses nftables so if you use firewalld, then firewalld uses nftables behind the scenes. The point that you have been mistakenly trying to make is that firewalld is useless because you can always do the same thing using nftables alone, which is not true. But don't worry, everyone who uses firewalld has your beloved nftables installed and active, they just don't interact directly with it because they don't need to.

You try not to lose focus like you did above where you now want to talk about trust. My reply was to pal666 and if you want to join in then start by reading the thread yourself. pal666 seems to like linux, the kernel, libc, firewalld and GUIs, but he has not explained yet what his problem with nftables is. So unless you can explain what his problem is do I suggest you hold back with your ignorance and do not make yourself into a fool for thinking you could answer the questions directed at pal666.

[pal666]

So, do you now agree that you are also using nftables when you use firewalld or are you still saying that you do not and that you would only need firewalld?

Do you know that firewalld is using nftables?

well, what made you think i don't? do i have to tell you that you pulse-audio still uses alsa?

[sdack]

well, what made you think i don't?

You mean, what makes me think that you don't? It is that you are unconvincing and have been speculating on what it is that firewalld does. If you had known then you would not need to speculate, would you?

[pal666]

You mean, what makes me think that you don't? It is that you are unconvincing and have been speculating on what it is that firewalld does. If you had known then you would not need to speculate, would you?

i know what firewalld does, i started using it many years ago. it looks like you don't know what it does and can't understand what i say

[pal666]

pal666 seems to like linux, the kernel, libc, firewalld and GUIs, but he has not explained yet what his problem with nftables is

you are contradicting yourself, nftables are part of kernel

[sdack]

i know what firewalld does

No, you do not.

[jacob]

This is your interpretation of trust and most of it is correct. But the point was not what trust is, but what security is. Security is control, and control gives certainty. Trust comes from uncertainty and the lack of absolute security.

Oh puh-lease. You are now trying to appear "knowledgeable" without realising that you just contradict yourself. This is not my interpretation, it's the official definition used, among others, by the US DoD. As for what's "essentially correct" it's obvious that you have a very long way to go before you are in a position to make such judgements. Your naive faith in absolute control is misplaced: without a suitable model of trust, control alone is in fact detrimental to security because it makes it more difficult to prove invariants.

[sdack]

Oh puh-lease. You are now trying to appear "knowledgeable" without realising that you just contradict yourself. ...

No, I am not. You just hate being wrong, which is why you keep playing the contrarian. Once you accept that others beside yourself can be right, too, might you understand. Until then can one only ignore your comments like the selfish remarks of a narcissist.

[jacob]

Proof is only a form of control. By making a proof do you take control over terms, conditions and parameters and so create certainty over the correctness, and eliminate the need for trust

Then...

This is your interpretation of trust and most of it is correct.

There you are.

You have shown throughout this thread that you talk about things that you don't understand (the nature and role of firewalld and its relationship with nftables, the type of programming used in high performance computing, security in general and its objectives, the actual - arguably counterintuitive - meaning of trust, its place and importance in achieving security objectives, you keep talking in laughable kiddie terms such as "absolute security" - whatever that's supposed to mean to you) and yet, when many people tried patiently to explain things to you, you just insulted some of them and reacted superciliously to the rest. Learn a few things, learn some humility and maybe then you won't feel that everyone is contrarian towards you when they call you out.

[sdack]

You have shown throughout this thread that you talk about things that you don't understand ...

No, you only choose not to understand me and this is your fault. I cannot help you beyond this point. Your ignorance is your problem and not that of others. Learn to read and when you cannot do that, at least learn when you should shut up.