The Book of PF, 4th edition - Comments

I wish I had more of them. I maintain a modest library made out of real paper and I'm so glad No Starch still has good quality paper and excellent binding. I have a few of the more recent print on demand O'Reilly books but they feel more like cheap print outs I could have done myself. Unfortunately they are just so expensive so I do have to be very selective.

Yeah. My favorite are books that guide you through implementing complex systems projects from scratch, like Nora Sandler's "Writing a C compiler", or Sy Brand's "Building a Debugger". I wish they produced A LOT more of them.

Per Dr. Marshall Kirk McKusick (as announced in one of the recent BSD conferences), No Starch Press will be publishing the third edition of the Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System book sometime later this year.

I buy ebooks straight from publishers like Nostarch and Leanpub. (In fact, I have an older edition of this book). There are a few books that are sold directly by the authors too. All of them DRM-free.

I actively avoid publishers and sellers who don't respect me as a consumer/reader. People need to start demanding better deals, or else we'll end up with monopolies that won't think twice about deleting books in your custody that you purchased from them.

No starch are the best! I’ve learned so much from them.

Nftables has a really good doc site https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Main_Page. I wouldn't rely on any book

Was thinking I had missed an entire edition of Pathfinder for a moment upon reading the title

There are e-readers and DRM-free electronic libraries.

I almost did the same and still think about doing it! I also have an older edition of this book somewhere in a small stack of OpenBSD books I purchased when I was first learning the system. These days I never reference them. But they do make for a neat OpenBSD area on my bookshelf.

It's slower than nftables.

I manage a pf.conf with about 400 rules across a dozen VLANs, I find it intuitive and even enjoyable to work on. It feels kinda like editing source code - there are some host, network, and port declarations at the top, a section for NAT and egress, then a section for each VLAN that contains the pass in/pass out rules.

I tail the pflog0 interface in a tmux session so I can keep an eye on pass/block, and also keep a handy function in my .profile to make it easy to edit the ruleset and reload:

    function pfedit {
          vi /etc/pf.conf && \
            pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf && \
            { c=`pfctl -s rules | wc -l | tr -d ' '`; printf 'loaded %s rules\n' "$c"; }
    }

Their BDFL thinks BC breaks are great “we’ll be in a better place” I remember him saying, and has blessed breaking pf multiple times by changing the rule syntax, whereas prior versions of this book are suddenly obsolete along with countless tutorials, forum posts, etc.

This is one thing M$ gets right, in business environments you don’t do that. I wouldn’t use pf for anything outside a home lab.

I haven't used Linux as a gateway in years, so I can only compare pf to iptables. The two biggest differences are the way the rules are applied and the logging.

pf rules work a little backwards compared to iptables. A packet traverses the entire ruleset and the last rule to match wins. You can short-circuit this with a "quick" directive. It takes a bit of getting used to coming from iptables.

The logging on pf doesn't integrate with syslog automatically like iptables does. You're expected to set up a logging system for your particular use case. There are several ways to do it, and for production you'd be doing it regardless, but for honelab setups it's an extra thing you need to worry about.

I prefer pf, but I don't recommend it to people new to firewalls.

It's fine if all you need is a packet filter, but in 2026 I question that many production use cases can get away with just packet filter.

As a host firewall, it's obviously fine, I assume your question is about using pf as a network firewall. Given the threat landscape, you usually want threat protection. At the very least that means close-to-real-time updates from reputation lists. You can script that with pf, but it's not fun. Really, you want protocol dissection and - quite possibly - the ability to decrypt on the box and do payload analysis. Just doing packet filtering doesn't buy you all that much anymore these days, and anything production that requires compliance or that you genuinely care about should be behind what you might also call IPS or layer 7 firewall capabilities.

pf doesn't do any of that. You don't have to use Palo Alto or Cisco for this, either.

If all you need is packet filtering, it's a good option, though.

I'm just glad we don't have to deal with iptables anymore. That said, due to iptables -A crap being embedded in countless tutorials and LLM FFN-head weights, we'll end up needing to keep it fresh in mind for decades to come.

I wish I had more of them. I maintain a modest library made out of real paper and I'm so glad No Starch still has good quality paper and excellent binding. I have a few of the more recent print on demand O'Reilly books but they feel more like cheap print outs I could have done myself. Unfortunately they are just so expensive so I do have to be very selective.

Yeah. My favorite are books that guide you through implementing complex systems projects from scratch, like Nora Sandler's "Writing a C compiler", or Sy Brand's "Building a Debugger". I wish they produced A LOT more of them.

Per Dr. Marshall Kirk McKusick (as announced in one of the recent BSD conferences), No Starch Press will be publishing the third edition of the Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System book sometime later this year.

I buy ebooks straight from publishers like Nostarch and Leanpub. (In fact, I have an older edition of this book). There are a few books that are sold directly by the authors too. All of them DRM-free.

I actively avoid publishers and sellers who don't respect me as a consumer/reader. People need to start demanding better deals, or else we'll end up with monopolies that won't think twice about deleting books in your custody that you purchased from them.

No starch are the best! I’ve learned so much from them.

Nftables has a really good doc site https://wiki.nftables.org/wiki-nftables/index.php/Main_Page. I wouldn't rely on any book

Was thinking I had missed an entire edition of Pathfinder for a moment upon reading the title

There are e-readers and DRM-free electronic libraries.

I almost did the same and still think about doing it! I also have an older edition of this book somewhere in a small stack of OpenBSD books I purchased when I was first learning the system. These days I never reference them. But they do make for a neat OpenBSD area on my bookshelf.

It's slower than nftables.

I manage a pf.conf with about 400 rules across a dozen VLANs, I find it intuitive and even enjoyable to work on. It feels kinda like editing source code - there are some host, network, and port declarations at the top, a section for NAT and egress, then a section for each VLAN that contains the pass in/pass out rules.

I tail the pflog0 interface in a tmux session so I can keep an eye on pass/block, and also keep a handy function in my .profile to make it easy to edit the ruleset and reload:

    function pfedit {
          vi /etc/pf.conf && \
            pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf && \
            { c=`pfctl -s rules | wc -l | tr -d ' '`; printf 'loaded %s rules\n' "$c"; }
    }

Their BDFL thinks BC breaks are great “we’ll be in a better place” I remember him saying, and has blessed breaking pf multiple times by changing the rule syntax, whereas prior versions of this book are suddenly obsolete along with countless tutorials, forum posts, etc.

This is one thing M$ gets right, in business environments you don’t do that. I wouldn’t use pf for anything outside a home lab.

I haven't used Linux as a gateway in years, so I can only compare pf to iptables. The two biggest differences are the way the rules are applied and the logging.

pf rules work a little backwards compared to iptables. A packet traverses the entire ruleset and the last rule to match wins. You can short-circuit this with a "quick" directive. It takes a bit of getting used to coming from iptables.

The logging on pf doesn't integrate with syslog automatically like iptables does. You're expected to set up a logging system for your particular use case. There are several ways to do it, and for production you'd be doing it regardless, but for honelab setups it's an extra thing you need to worry about.

I prefer pf, but I don't recommend it to people new to firewalls.

It's fine if all you need is a packet filter, but in 2026 I question that many production use cases can get away with just packet filter.

As a host firewall, it's obviously fine, I assume your question is about using pf as a network firewall. Given the threat landscape, you usually want threat protection. At the very least that means close-to-real-time updates from reputation lists. You can script that with pf, but it's not fun. Really, you want protocol dissection and - quite possibly - the ability to decrypt on the box and do payload analysis. Just doing packet filtering doesn't buy you all that much anymore these days, and anything production that requires compliance or that you genuinely care about should be behind what you might also call IPS or layer 7 firewall capabilities.

pf doesn't do any of that. You don't have to use Palo Alto or Cisco for this, either.

If all you need is packet filtering, it's a good option, though.

I'm just glad we don't have to deal with iptables anymore. That said, due to iptables -A crap being embedded in countless tutorials and LLM FFN-head weights, we'll end up needing to keep it fresh in mind for decades to come.