Here is why NAS functionality on pfsense can make a hell lot of sense.
-
My definition of "correct" is the physical hardware. I figure I need at least $2k to get started. I won't go for anything less than 1TiB of logical, back by all SSDs of several different brands, Xeon, 10Gb NIC+switch, and 64GiB of DDR4. The bigger issue is finding some good hot-swap hardware(bays)
From my POV you've stepped from the "Build my own NAS" to the "Build my own Server" maybe a change of perspective is in order…...
A NAS that isn't a server is a toy, not a tool. Like getting a NAS from a Happy Meal.
I think I got jaded when I was young. My dad purchased some cheaper computers and they were so annoying to work with, I stopped using them all together. I gave up using computers for almost a year and my dad wondered why. I told him, get something better or nothing at all. Of course I used my own money to help augment the price differences.
I refuse to work with cheap hardware. This is why I have an Intel i210-T1 on my desktop. Screw RealTek integrated. I have 3 SSDs in all of my computers, in case one dies. I did not order any computers until I could afford at least 2 SSDs. I don't need high availability and RAID controllers, but I do need fall-back plans. When I get a new computer, 1 week of CPU and memory burn-ins, split about 4 days of memtest and 3 days of CPU, which also stresses the memory during parts.
If you're going to do it, do it well or don't do it at all.
-
Almost every consumer grade router has built-in NAS functionality nowadays
In the past someof this NAS-routers where seen from Netgear, ASUS and other vendors, for sure
if anybody means that is the right thing for him self, he should go and buy and use it.Examples please.
AVM Fritz!Box Router comes with a NAS "function"
Netgear was launching a so called NAS-router (a router with a inserted HDD/SSD)
ASUS was also setting up on of that devices but with no really market gainA firewall is a security based and focused device that is using rules or rule sets to separate
networks from one or more other networks, and a router is routing packets from one to another
or more networks, and why a firewall also can route packets it might be not putting these devices
in the same class of things.There are many NAS solutions out there that can be easily used together with pfSense, but so
both of them would be able to do his own job the code was written for. So why both systems
should be installed together on one unit opening then more security holes or risks that are unwanted?Because some of the users love to be get more comfort? I would love to see more security things in
a firewall and usability in a NAS and not both together on one system.Also for the developers it would be a nightmare because the NAS fraction want to insert all new and
fancy things and the firewall guys want to insert lees as able to do, related to security holes and we
all have to wait for the new product or version for ever? No I don´t want this.Let them run in two different VMs or stand alone, this might be the best compromise for all customers
and the development staff too.@NopIt
it is an older thread but about the same thing we are talking here, you could have a look inside if you
want and will be able to imagine that this would perhaps a really often thought or idea, but it is not really
matching the security point and there fore it is better as it is likes now in my opinion. Link to the therad -
Too many people are worry about security, when there no such thing is 100% vulnerability free. Would be nice to have the feature for the ones that want to use it, would allow this old HP DL380 G6 I got to do more than just be a "firewall"
-
Too many people are worry about security,
Should we not talking about if we are talking about our firewalls?
when there no such thing is 100% vulnerability free.
For sure you are right but many peoples are working very on pfSense to be 100% worry free!
And know because some want to get a nice gimmick the entire rest must go home or live with
a potential unsecure firewall? I really don´t think so.Would be nice to have the feature for the ones that want to use it,
You are free to hire someone who will be wrtiting the code for such a packet, here.
would allow this old HP DL380 G6 I got to do more than just be a "firewall"
In the pfSense shop or at Netgate are many devices that could be really a nice and fast firewall
only. And they are all saving electric power on top. So no one was pressing you to go by this PC. -
@BlueKobold:
Too many people are worry about security,
Should we not talking about if we are talking about our firewalls?
when there no such thing is 100% vulnerability free.
For sure you are right but many peoples are working very on pfSense to be 100% worry free!
And know because some want to get a nice gimmick the entire rest must go home or live with
a potential unsecure firewall? I really don´t think so.Would be nice to have the feature for the ones that want to use it,
You are free to hire someone who will be wrtiting the code for such a packet, here.
would allow this old HP DL380 G6 I got to do more than just be a "firewall"
In the pfSense shop or at Netgate are many devices that could be really a nice and fast firewall
only. And they are all saving electric power on top. So no one was pressing you to go by this PC.Firewall that I would call cute at most, if you want to talk firewalls pair Cisco FirePOWER with OpenDNS Umbrella. I just see to many people bash down on ideas to innovate, not like I'm worry about how good pfSense works. My old appliance die and I had mess load of DL380 from work which I loaded up my Porsche with and sold most of them on eBay. Now I got 12 core, 48Gb, 4x Pro/1000 ET Quad with 6TB of light speed storage firewall for no reason at all. I was just thinking about having Samba on it and intewebs lead me here. Some people would call wearing a 6 foot fox fursuit with a socialist armband a gimmick too.
Foxler
-
Too many people are worry about security
:o
-
I don't think pfsense should develop NAS capability, I just think it'd be nice to run them both on the same box without vm. I mean, the only thing separating them now is an Ethernet cable, why not do away with the physical separation and have a robust software integration that is security conscious AND feature rich. Let them share what they can share and keep separate what needs to be separate. A pfsense based time capsule would be killer.
-
luckily this will probably never happen.
if people wish to dig their own grave then they should do so, i guess.
-
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.
-
NopIt,
I'm not sure why you are beating a dead horse; you have already been provided an answer and venting is not likely to change anything.
The fact that Windows is not very secure does not justify NAS functionality being added to pfSense. I do not follow this logic. As a security professional, I would not want NAS functionality added to pfSense.
If you have a decent enough computer with a few network cards on it, consider loading the free VMware ESXi hypervisor on it and then load FreeNAS and pfSense as separate virtual machines (VM) on ESXi. This will allow you to share hardware for both services. I personally do this for several services on my home network including Plex, SABnzbd, Deluge, etc., all running Ubuntu server on separate VM's. Pfsense would also run fine as a VM, but I prefer a dedicated box for this so that I can do maintenance on ESXi whenever I please without impacting internet service.
Just my 2 cents.
-
"The fact that Windows is not very secure does not justify NAS functionality being added to pfSense."
I'm just arguing that almost everyone has private data on the same computer that they use to surf the Internet. Thus there is absolutely no reason to not reduce pfsense's security by 0.00001 nano-percent (or whatever that would be) to get a ton of benifits.I mean seriously. It feels like some people here are living in a dreamworld. Maybe an analogy helps you understand my POV:
Imagine you live in a house and you buy a super heavy titanium steel bunker door because you care about security. At the same time you don't even spend a second about the fact that a small stone could easily penetrate any window in your house and you refuse to add a door handle to the inside of the bunker door because you somehow think that it could have any affect on the security of the door.
See the irony? -
I'd wager that the person putting a bunker door on the house would have already secured the rest of it, and they would put a door handle on the inside, but have the deadbolt be keyed instead of just a knob. (Basically, I think your analogy is faulty).
NAS gives a potential way in; every service running on a computer/firewall/router has the potential to allow someone a way in. Software is written by humans, people make mistakes. Mistakes lead to buffer overflows, which lead to privilege escalation, which lead to access.
Access can lead to malware or programs using your equipment to act as part of a bot net to DDOS a bank. DDOS could lead to Federal charges. Oh, you didn't know someone "broke into" your computer/NAS/firewall? Too bad, enjoy the next 20 years of your life in a small cell.
NAS on your firewall/router. Someone that doesn't like you, they figure out your public IP, start a DOS against you. Your ISP doesn't do anything about it, so until you unplug from the Internet, you can't even access the files on your NAS.
"…a ton of benefits."
I don't see any benefit other than maybe having one less device, and given the cost, I can do without that benefit. Noone is telling you "you can't do that". They are saying "It's a bad idea, go ahead if you want to, I am not helping you".Perhaps we are living in a dreamworld, where there is understanding that bad things can happen and bad people exist.
-
"…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.
