Here is why NAS functionality on pfsense can make a hell lot of sense.
-
"…a ton of benefits."
Not only one I saw or can imagine! ;)
In the Link I was posting you, you were able to read that your dream becomes perhaps going on
or happen. It was the last statement from @jwt and so this discussion about is in my eyes obsolete! ::)
Now that bhyve has been added, you could probably have pfReeNAS without too much trouble.So this might be a real gain for someone, but I personally hope that the development team is not
doing it in another way and let all the code fleeting in the pfSense source code, because than we
would fall back for seeing many fine functions and options that is really missed at this time from
much more peoples;- Intel QuickAssist support
- CPU multicore usage for the entire core system
Would be making much more sense in my eyes than getting a NAS box on top!
If you want to have a NAS there are many different ways to walk this road and
for each need another system likes; ::)- FreeNAS
- NA4FreeS
- OwnCloud
- OpenMediaVault
So if the new Intel Xeon D-1548 would come out you could really built a new pfSense
box and spend your older one for a NAS, that this theme is really solved. ;D -
"Not only one I saw or can imagine! ;)"
So basically you didn't even read the first post. I guess I don't have to read yours either then…@mer
Yeah sure buffer overflows and all that stuff can happen. But we are living in 2015. We know about TDD/BDD and we can easily test edge cases before releasing a product. -
If you want a NAS, setup a NAS, if you want a firewall, setup a firewall. If you don't care about security, forego the firewall and just setup your NAS.
NAS and firewall are nearly as polar opposite as you can get. May as well ask for a NAS app to install on your cellphone. Ummm… No. Of course someone could always create a package for PFSense, but most people skilled enough to do so won't agree with NAS on a firewall.
This could just be my Server Admin, Server Security, Network Admin, and Network Security background talking. Now I just do software development, but I can smell a bad idea a mile away.
-
@mer
Yeah sure buffer overflows and all that stuff can happen. But we are living in 2015. We know about TDD/BDD and we can easily test edge cases before releasing a product.Anyone that does development knows that all the tools in the world does not automatically mean better code. I'd wager it lets you make mistakes faster. "One more feature", lack of unit testing, shortened QA cycles (because the release date can't be moved) all lead to test cases not getting covered. Edge cases? Sorry, but users will come up with ones you never thought of.
Another way of looking at it: Default Deny vs Default Accept security stance. Which is easier to verify? (Hint, OpenBSD does Default Deny, Windows does Default Accept).
I agree with Harvy66 and other that integrating NAS functionality onto a pfSense box is bad idea, but you know what? It's your hardware, you have complete control of it so you do what you want. You may get others to help you, but those who "waste too much time on security" are just going to sit back and chuckle.
-
I spent some more time thinking about this and I still think that all the security concerns are complete BS.
I mean if you think about it, having anything sensitive on a computer that has a browser or Windows on it (or even better: android) is a gazzilion times more risky.
Just think about the million Flash and browser vulnerabilities.
In my opinion everyone who argues that NAS and router on the same device is stupid has no right to run Windows in a network with private data. Period.
But I'm sure you all have figured this out and are running a separate computer for every program. One for the emails, one for the browser, one for the notepad, one for the calculator and one for minesweeper. I mean you would probably get hacked within a minute if you were to run all these on the same device, right?But (I probably said this a million times by now) what makes you think that pfsense would be any less secure when you install a NAS package on it? I mean seriously WHAT EXACTLY do you think would cause pfsense to be any less secure? I mean the NAS package would have no reason to temper with the router config and I highly doubt that pfsense would accidentally create a vulnerability upon spotting a NAS package.
I'm all for it, even if I had no firewall at all. Only thing people are going to see on my network is lot of furry porn. In enterprise environment, then whole other ball park even so you hardly see open sources used anyway.
There was day many years ago when my first firewall was Celeron 366 with 32mb of PC133 and cell phone were only made for calling. Have you seen smart phones lately? If I have to setup VM then I will, but it can be done. For now time go back to this "good all days of dailup and being teenager" >>>
Foxler
-
Hi!
Jumping in this discussion a little late, still my points are:
1 - We don't have even the available packages working as well we need, if you want to contribute more and have the time, help improve the packages.
2 - pfSense is intended as a Router/Firewall system, it also can be built as an UTM, but NAS fits a completely different category and functionality.
3 - If you say security concerns for NAS in pfSense are BS, you clearly understand s** about security. You NEVER, EVER expose your files or any sensitive data for that matter, in the very OS that serves as Firewall between your network and the rest of the world.
4 - If you want to host simple files for Proxy messages, simple web pages, there's already a package called vHosts, use that.
5 - IF you want to build a cheap NAS, buy Raspberry Pi 2 or a Cupieboard, they are cheap and you can learn a lot working with them.
-
@BlueKobold:
- Intel QuickAssist support
soon
@BlueKobold:
- CPU multicore usage for the entire core system
what do you think netmap-fwd is about? :-)
Also: "Woof!"
-
OP, I found the answer to your combined NAS/Firewall-router predicament.
-
http://www.pcper.com/news/Cases-and-Cooling/Phanteks-Enthoo-Mini-XL-Dual-System-Enclosure-2-Motherboards-1-PSU
That's a ridiculous solution! - The colour is all wrong ;)
-
3 - If you say security concerns for NAS in pfSense are BS, you clearly understand s** about security. You NEVER, EVER expose your files or any sensitive data for that matter, in the very OS that serves as Firewall between your network and the rest of the world.
When your boss know what you do in bed, sensitive data last thing on your mind. Some people understand everything about security, some of those people understand it will be losing battle. If I'm getting paid for it then yes, for myself I could care less. It's always about getting things you don't need. It reminds me when I stop by a Mcdonalds few years back while on the road at night. I saw this very over weight woman, she couldn't even wait for her order to get done. She was eating it right at the counter, my other boss was like "OMG you don't need take other bite of that. Put it down!" Yes idea of firewall and NAS is not normal, but sometimes people do odd things.
@jwt:
Also: "Woof!"
Arf
