Distributed Denial of Service attacks are an ever prevalent challenge for system administra-tors today to overcome. The attack, which is all about restricting legitimate users access to a service, such as a web-page. Can cost companies and governments millions of dollars if not properly managed. This study aims to explore if there is any difference in performance between some of the most modern iterations of popular server operating systems today. Those server operating systems are: Windows Server 2016, Ubuntu 16 and FreeBSD 11. And submitting them to one of the most popular DDoS attacks at the time of writing, a so called HTTP-Get request. The webservers used are some of the most widely used today, Apache and Microsoft IIS. Each server will be submitted to attacks, and compared between one another. Different de-fence methods will also be tested and examined. Tests include shorter tests that is repeated multiple times for data validity, and one longer test for every condition in order to control if the results are similar. During these tests, the operating systems will measure CPU/RAM utilization, and a control computer will measure Round Trip Time. Windows Server 2016 using IIS and FreeBSD 11 perform similarly resource wise, but Win-dows Server 2016 with IIS had a better Round Trip Time performance. Windows Server 2016 with Apache performs worst in all measurements, while Ubuntu 16 performs in the middle, but has the most stable performance.

Paketfiltrering är en av nyckelfunktionerna i de flesta av dagens brandväggar, vilket gör paketfiltrering till en viktig del av det dagliga arbetet för många systemadministratörer. Sedan uppkomsten av paketfiltrering har nätverkskomplexiteten ökat drastiskt, Många av dagens tjänster har behov av olika protokoll för att kommunicera. I kombination med detta måste brandväggen bearbeta en större mängd data än tidigare för att tillgodose dagens nätverkstopologier.Denna studie syftar till att undersöka om det finns någon skillnad i prestanda mellan två moderna iterationer av de populära UNIX-brandväggarna IPtables och FreeBSD PF. Detta sker genom att de två brandväggarna utsätts för olika antal regler, samtidigt som de genomströmmas av olika stora paketflöden.De båda brandväggarna kommer att jämföras baserat på tre attribut, CPU, genomströmning och latens. tre olika bandbredder testas. 100, 500 och 1000Mbit/s. Testet omfattar längre tester som upprepas flera gånger för att öka studiens giltighet. Testerna som utförs görs på ursprungliga operativsystemet för varje brandvägg. Linux Ubuntu 16 för IPtables och FreeBSD 11 för FreeBSD PF.Studien kom fram till att brandväggarnas prestanda är likvärdiga i genomströmning och latens vid lägre regelmängder. Vid högre regelmängder skiljer sig prestandan och PF är bättre anpassad för stora regeluppsättningar. IPtables anses vara den bättre brandväggen för låga regeluppsättningar på grund av dess låga CPU-användning. / Packetfiltering is one of the key features in most of today’s firewalls. With many packetfilters being used daily in a system administrator’s work. Over the years since founding of the packetfilter technology the complexity of the network has increased drastically, where many of today’s services relies on different protocols to communicate, combined with a much larger amount of data that the firewall must process to satisfy todays network topologies.This study aims to explore if there is any difference in performance between two modern iterations of popular UNIX firewalls, IPtables and FreeBSD PF. By submitting them to different number of rulesets while at the same testing them under a series of different packet flows through the firewall.Both firewalls will be compared based on three attributes, CPU, throughput and latency, and three different bandwidths will be tested. 100, 500 and 1000Mbits/s. The test include longer tests that is repeated multiple times to increase the validity of the study. The tests were performed on the native operating system of each firewall. Linux Ubuntu 16 for IPtables and FreeBSD 11 for FreeBSD PF.The study concluded that the performance of the firewalls is equal in throughput and latency at lower volumes. At higher amounts of rulesets, performance is different between the firewalls and PF is considered better for large rules, while IPtables are considered to be a better firewall for low rulesets due to its low CPU usage.