Fail2ban vs CSF

None imho. CSF is more enhanced (more options), so way better.
Fail2ban is in fact a bit different and just does scanning logs for port intrusion and bans them, makes it a bit lighter.
CSF is a bit more extended and does not only what Fail2ban does, but also does complete firewalling stuff which F2B does not.

May F2B for some extra specific services monitoring?

I found a good comparison here (click).

Personally I never found anything from F2B what CSF couldn't do. But maybe somebody knows something extra which I missed.
 
Hi Richard , my question was more why are both available in custombuild ?
When you go to the options you see fail2ban as installable program, does is it make sense to have fail2ban and CSF in Custombuild ?
 
It's just give option to people that want "Fail2ban is better than anything else", while default scanner from fail2ban only have the SSH and need relay full-scan (slowest) other services from BFM Directadmin.

No ip_ignore optional, No UI, and they might crying ask for the GUI like CSF... 😅
 
I second that. I didn't even know it was in there but I know several people talking and asking about it, so maybe it's just in to give people who want that as a choice, just like before the webmail versions (or maybe they are still in).
 
I wonder how new functionality for a next release is decided? Is this something users ask for somewhere or something the developers decide to be useful? I understand that for a legacy license you have to take what you can get, but now we're paying monthly and somewhat of a roadmap would be nice.
F2B is a great example. Suddenly it's available with zero prior notice. Not a single line of info like 'if you use csf, f2b is kinda useless'. Is it there because csf is going exit? Why not choose something like AIDE instead of something that is already covered with csf?
Why do I suddenly have to explain difference to users because they google f2b and now think it's an intrusion prevention system making their server safer while it is not adding anything to csf?

It feels like Monday...
 
I believe the option fail2ban was added first in DirectAdmin 1.705 b922e58b06ac1d673026827a70a139207f232199. No long ago.

Bash: 
# da build opt_help | grep fail2ban
fail2ban: yes, no. Current value: no. Default value: no.

But I never tried it on my own servers.
 
sysdev said:
Not a single line of info like 'if you use csf, f2b is kinda useless'.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't make sense because that is more of an opinion. Most would say like I do, CSF has all that F2B can do so F2B is useless if you want to have good security.
Others would swear to F2B and for small private servers F2B can be a bit lighter, but lot less functionality and fail2ban is still supported on github by the original creators if I'm not mistaken.
It's not up to the panel to decide whats best for you. Same with Apache and Nginx or OS.
Most added features are suddenly there without prior notice, except maybe for the release announcement so I don't really see any difference with the past.

Aide might be a good idea. But it's never spoken about here on DA while several users wanted F2B so maybe that is how the choice is made.
Not sure if that is the case but seems reasonable.
Maybe good idea to put Aide up in the feedback site?

sysdev said:
It feels like Monday...
Click to expand...
Rather monday users as F2B has already been out for many years, nothing new. A bit better Googler can see that very fast.
 
Unfortunately the work with Fail2Ban is not finished yet, especially integration part with DA Panel. That's why it has not been announced anywhere in Release Notes. We expected to release it faster, but there was other stuff to do. So, everybody still needs to wait when the work is done :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top