From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 763D376C90 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:09:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6455912ED7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:09:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E22B712ECB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AFFDC45CDB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <80c2938f-049a-0f65-e269-aef6eb2bc85d@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:09:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:94.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/94.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com> References: <20211011105704.760773-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <20211011105704.760773-2-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <39f67e0b-143e-93f6-fd96-7b208b86a3ae@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <39f67e0b-143e-93f6-fd96-7b208b86a3ae@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.334 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -2.267 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 firewall 1/2] implement fail2ban backend and API X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:09:34 -0000 On 19.10.21 15:43, Dominik Csapak wrote: > while the code looks ok IMHO, i have some general questions: > * does it really make sense to hard depend on fail2ban? > =C2=A0 could it not also make sense to have it as 'recommends' or 'sugg= ests'? > =C2=A0 setting enabled to 1 could then check if its installed and > =C2=A0 raise an error fwiw, it does not make sense to me to have a hard dependency here, as I p= ointed out in pretty much every revision of this series, that and most other thi= ngs (e.g., trying if we can simply generate the rules here ourself) where rather ign= ored so after the third iteration I went "tit for tat" and ignored the whole thin= g.. >=20 > * if we do not plan to add more fail2ban options in our config, > =C2=A0 i would rather see a combined fail2ban option (propertystring?) > =C2=A0 that would go into the general host firewall options >=20 > =C2=A0 that way we would not have to c&p the whole config parsing/setti= ng api > =C2=A0 and could have a single new option line in the gui instead > =C2=A0 of a whole new panel with only 3 options (i think the majority o= f our > =C2=A0 users will not use fail2ban) would make much more sense, it's an simple option and bringing down UX by= crowding the interface for a simple an option that one sets one-time only= anyway seems not ideal to me..