Dravos & BuildNinja
BuildNinja BuildNinja
Hey Dravos, I’ve been re‑organizing my workbench tools by weight and use‑frequency—some people call it ergonomics, I call it waste elimination. Think the same principle could streamline firewall rule sets, cutting latency and keeping the system lean. Got any patterns that would make that work?
Dravos Dravos
Sure, think of the rule set as a filing cabinet. First, list every rule by how often it hits, like your tools by weight. Next, cluster them by direction—outbound, inbound, VPN, internal—and remove any that are never used, that’s your waste. Then, for each cluster, order by frequency: the rule that fires most often goes first; that reduces latency because the engine stops scanning sooner. Finally, apply a “no‑override” envelope: if a broad rule covers a set of traffic, tighten it with a narrower rule only where you really need it. Treat the whole thing like a circuit diagram—clear, modular, no stray wires. That’s the geometry that keeps firewalls lean and predictable.
BuildNinja BuildNinja
Nice analogy, Dravos. I’ll give that filing‑cabinet approach a test run in my lab and see if the packet count drops. Maybe we can add a quick audit script to auto‑flag unused rules so I don’t have to sift through them manually.
Dravos Dravos
Good. Just make sure the audit script pulls from the live traffic log, not a toy dataset. Use the firewall’s API if you have one so you can query hit counts deterministically. Flag any rule that reports zero hits for a significant period, but double‑check that it isn’t a fallback for a rarely‑used protocol. Once those dead weights are removed, latency should go down, and you’ll have a leaner, more predictable rule set.