Hacker News Reader

Comment by voytec | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

If Apple is shipping that implementation as part of their OS, doesn't it make sense to let Apple know they should pick a different upstream target?

No, you see grasshopper, Apple is infallible. If there's a problem with any of their devices or software, it's always someone else's fault. /s

To the best of my knowledge, OpenBSD's pf wouldn't exhibit such pathological behavior.

Exactly - it's a screwup on Apple's part, not OpenBSD's.

And Mullvad very clearly indicated it's connected to Apple/macOS:

> bug in the macOS firewall, packet filter (PF)

It's not macOS firewall, but Apple's implementation of OpenBSD's pf used in Apple's macOS. Mullvad is clearly pointing at a bug in OpenBSD's "packet filter", mentioning that it's used in macOS.

Mullvad's article lacks proper wording and shits on the wrong target.

There isn't any mention of OpenBSD in the article. It says:

> a bug in the macOS firewall, packet filter (PF)

> We believe the firewall bugs must be fixed by Apple.

I don't see how you can interpret that as shitting on OpenBSD.

Or maybe they're not shitting on anyone in particular and just trying to warn their MacOS users about a security issue?

Without looking, chances are Apple is using the FreeBSD fork of pf, that diverged long ago (mostly to implement SMP to handle much more traffic).

Looking reveals that Apple started with the pf from openbsd

https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1699.22.73/bsd/n...

Note: no FreeBSD copyright.

Just because OpenBSD isn't relevant anymore doesn't mean anything vaguely related to it as an attack.

The OpenBSD OS is roughly as relevant today as it ever were. The OpenBSD project has significantly grown in relevance since inception through OpenSSH, LibreSSL and dozens of other high-quality implementations.

Apple ships libressl

> Apple introduced a bug

It seems pretty clear that the article isn't bashing OpenBSD in any way whatsoever.

Or even mentioning OpenBSD.

What part is emotional

voytec's comment ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com