Comments on: Why ufw Does Not Need A GUI http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/ Enhancing your Ubuntu experience! Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:29:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Fr33d0m http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-7949 Fr33d0m Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:21:41 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-7949 In general I agree with the need for a GUI to manage the firewall. https://launchpad.net/gui-ufw is one based around UFW--which is really not so much a firewall as a set of commands to manage a firewall. But gui-ufw is not an example of what I think is needed in a firewall GUI. It is partly there and it is a fairly new project so perhaps it will grow. Firewall rules are more complex--even in their relative simplicity--than a non-technical user can reasonably be expected to grasp. Something that combines the wizard approach of both Firestarter and lokkit is what is needed. In general I agree with the need for a GUI to manage the firewall.

https://launchpad.net/gui-ufw is one based around UFW–which is really not so much a firewall as a set of commands to manage a firewall.

But gui-ufw is not an example of what I think is needed in a firewall GUI. It is partly there and it is a fairly new project so perhaps it will grow.

Firewall rules are more complex–even in their relative simplicity–than a non-technical user can reasonably be expected to grasp. Something that combines the wizard approach of both Firestarter and lokkit is what is needed.

]]> By: Roland Latour http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-5882 Roland Latour Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:41:38 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-5882 It doesn't need a GUI, but it does need a config file. Order is important, and getting that order right is a PITA. Bug#260745. It doesn’t need a GUI, but it does need a config file. Order is important, and getting that order right is a PITA. Bug#260745.

]]> By: gaiterin http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4724 gaiterin Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:27:32 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4724 A simple GUI for ufw: http://code.google.com/p/gui-ufw/ Regards. A simple GUI for ufw:
http://code.google.com/p/gui-ufw/
Regards.

]]> By: matti http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4460 matti Sun, 11 May 2008 22:11:47 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4460 Well. as the pool of Ubuntu users increases the composition of the users will include an increasing portion of the types of users falling into that >>90% category - regular human beings. At the same time, as the number of Ubuntu users reaches a critical mass, an increasing number of low life will shift their attention to these non technical human beings and their unprotected PCs. UFW needs a GUI for normal people. That's all there is to it. To a normal person there is no such thing as an "uncomplicated terminal command". It begs the question how the name UFW was decided on. Uncomplicated to whom? The normal users or the trailblazers of technology? Well. as the pool of Ubuntu users increases the composition of the users will include an increasing portion of the types of users falling into that >>90% category – regular human beings.
At the same time, as the number of Ubuntu users reaches a critical mass, an increasing number of low life will shift their attention to these non technical human beings and their unprotected PCs.
UFW needs a GUI for normal people. That’s all there is to it. To a normal person there is no such thing as an “uncomplicated terminal command”. It begs the question how the name UFW was decided on. Uncomplicated to whom? The normal users or the trailblazers of technology?

]]> By: polarizers 2 cents http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4407 polarizers 2 cents Fri, 09 May 2008 09:08:24 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4407 since firewall stuff is pretty technically and you've to know what you're doin' i've no problem with console only interface. >>90% of users not even know what an ip address is much less they know about ports or protocols. btw: the notation of the rules reminds me on openbsd's packet filter (pf) polarizers 2 cents since firewall stuff is pretty technically and you’ve to know what you’re doin’ i’ve no problem with console only interface.

>>90% of users not even know what an ip address is much less they know about ports or protocols.

btw: the notation of the rules reminds me on openbsd’s packet filter (pf)

polarizers 2 cents

]]> By: Rusty http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4386 Rusty Tue, 06 May 2008 20:35:16 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4386 I won't argue over whether UFW needs a GUI. I would say instead that IPTables needs a maintained GUI that works with Network Manager. Perhaps as a plug in to Network Manager. Again though it need not be a front end to ufw. I would love to see ufw generally available upstream in Debian. An apt-cache search for ufw on my debian server comes back with hits for nufw and nuauth related packages, which from looking at the descriptions does not appear to be quite what ufw offers. The biggest problem that I have with manually configuring iptables is that I come from a network not a firewall background. The ufw syntax maps very nicely to the access list syntax on routers that I have worked on. Different key words at times, but it's something I can fairly easily wrap my head around. IPTables has not been as easy for me to do the same with. I understand the general concept they came up with, however the syntax very quickly gets bogged down in trying to figure out why this rule or that is in this list, or that one. If there were one request out of any ui to IPTables, it would be that it would be able to spit out a 'script' that I could use to configure IPTables on a separate system that does not have that UI. i.e. I can create the UFW commands on my Ubuntu laptop or server, and get the resulting rules to paste onto my Debian server. And before someone says 'well, why don't you just compile ufw from source on the debian box?' or 'just install the pre-compiled package for debian from [arbitrary location].' that's not part of what I specifically asked for, and I'm not installing a compiler on my server, whether it is protected from with a firewall or not. My specific request was for it to be in the Debian collection of packages (stable) or for a syntax converter from ufw to iptables. Great work already though. Probably enough to get me to replace the underlying server distribution at my remote location. We'll see. I won’t argue over whether UFW needs a GUI. I would say instead that IPTables needs a maintained GUI that works with Network Manager. Perhaps as a plug in to Network Manager. Again though it need not be a front end to ufw.

I would love to see ufw generally available upstream in Debian. An apt-cache search for ufw on my debian server comes back with hits for nufw and nuauth related packages, which from looking at the descriptions does not appear to be quite what ufw offers.

The biggest problem that I have with manually configuring iptables is that I come from a network not a firewall background. The ufw syntax maps very nicely to the access list syntax on routers that I have worked on. Different key words at times, but it’s something I can fairly easily wrap my head around. IPTables has not been as easy for me to do the same with. I understand the general concept they came up with, however the syntax very quickly gets bogged down in trying to figure out why this rule or that is in this list, or that one.

If there were one request out of any ui to IPTables, it would be that it would be able to spit out a ‘script’ that I could use to configure IPTables on a separate system that does not have that UI. i.e. I can create the UFW commands on my Ubuntu laptop or server, and get the resulting rules to paste onto my Debian server.

And before someone says ‘well, why don’t you just compile ufw from source on the debian box?’ or ‘just install the pre-compiled package for debian from [arbitrary location].’ that’s not part of what I specifically asked for, and I’m not installing a compiler on my server, whether it is protected from with a firewall or not. My specific request was for it to be in the Debian collection of packages (stable) or for a syntax converter from ufw to iptables.

Great work already though. Probably enough to get me to replace the underlying server distribution at my remote location. We’ll see.

]]> By: Conor http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4383 Conor Tue, 06 May 2008 14:31:05 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4383 By far one of the best posts I've found on this blog. You don't update as frequently as I'm used to seeing on my feeds list, but I will trade frequent updates any day for this level of quality. Thank you, and keep it up, please! By far one of the best posts I’ve found on this blog. You don’t update as frequently as I’m used to seeing on my feeds list, but I will trade frequent updates any day for this level of quality.

Thank you, and keep it up, please!

]]> By: Brad Johnson http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4373 Brad Johnson Mon, 05 May 2008 15:39:56 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4373 I think Ubuntu needs to standardize around one firewall method/platform. UFW seems to be a good place to start as it can easily exist in both Server & Workstation. Firestarter is NOT a good option for use with Network Manager and multiple networks. Instead of saying UFW needs a GUI, let's just say that Ubuntu workstations need a Network Manager-aware GUI for ufw. Can you get behind that? I think Ubuntu needs to standardize around one firewall method/platform. UFW seems to be a good place to start as it can easily exist in both Server & Workstation. Firestarter is NOT a good option for use with Network Manager and multiple networks.

Instead of saying UFW needs a GUI, let’s just say that Ubuntu workstations need a Network Manager-aware GUI for ufw. Can you get behind that?

]]> By: Arun http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4371 Arun Mon, 05 May 2008 14:35:38 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4371 If Ubuntu is really a Linux distribution for human beings (true so far), then they should supply a GUI for ufw unless ufw is only meant for server and not desktop. If it's meant for desktops as well, then a GUI to control it is the right direction for end users and to market Ubuntu as user friendly. If Ubuntu is really a Linux distribution for human beings (true so far), then they should supply a GUI for ufw unless ufw is only meant for server and not desktop. If it’s meant for desktops as well, then a GUI to control it is the right direction for end users and to market Ubuntu as user friendly.

]]> By: richard http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2008/05/04/why-ufw-does-not-need-a-gui/#comment-4365 richard Mon, 05 May 2008 03:52:31 +0000 http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/?p=636#comment-4365 I think the problem lies in the name. "Uncomplicated Firewall" implies that it is simple to use, but oh noes it has a CLI based interface give us a GUI. The solution is not to add a GUI to ufw but rather to make another GUI firewall that does the same thing specifically for Desktop users. Currently there seems to be a hole in that niche and people are trying to shoehorn ufw into it. I think the problem lies in the name. “Uncomplicated Firewall” implies that it is simple to use, but oh noes it has a CLI based interface give us a GUI.

The solution is not to add a GUI to ufw but rather to make another GUI firewall that does the same thing specifically for Desktop users.

Currently there seems to be a hole in that niche and people are trying to shoehorn ufw into it.

]]>