@revengineer said in pfSense Gold Free with 2.4.4-RELEASE:
@ivor, this is a very generous move of netgate. Thank you for that. One remaining question: In the past, I really enjoyed the pdf version of the pfsense book. Will this still be available and how? (please don't kill this format of the book.)
I'd like to second this request. There are situations where there is no inet connection or limited to specifik hosts/domains. A pdf is a great help
Don't know if it's related or not, but somehow I managed to get myself blacklisted from "forum.netgate.com."
I initially thought the forum was down as my attempts to refresh multiple forum pages took longer and longer and finally timed out. I can only guess my attempts to refresh multiple times was regarded as "nefarious" by some algorithm or other.
Eventually I tried from a clients site and was able to connect without an issue.
I prompted an IP address change for my home network and voila - all is well again.
Hopefully just more teething pains.....
We expect the store will be back online soon, then we can confirm the status. I'm truly sorry for this inconvenience. I'll update you once the store is back online. Thanks!
e: can you please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org so our sales can contact you with shipping status? Thanks!
No, courses are not recorded and are interactive. It's divided in segments allowing you to step away for a bit but, just like any other education such as Microsoft or Cisco, you will have to devote your day to it.
I replaced my USG router with the QNAP pfSense VM image and it seems to be running fine. Our DLS internet is VERY bad so I can't comment on speed. The QNAP is a TVS-882 with SSD's and spinning disks; running on Qtier. Might not be required but I dedicated two on the Qnap's NICs to WAN/LAN each on a differnt Qnap vSwitch. Had some issues with Container services not working. I'm also new to running pfSense but I like it so far and like having one less box in the closet. Couldn't get OpenVPN running (probably just me) on pfSense so I'm just running it on the QNAP like before.
@jimp said in Moving the pfSense Documentation to GitHub:
The only parts you could lose in the process are specific to Github, like PRs, issues (if you use them), access controls on repos, and so on. But the contents are always easy to shove wherever you want with git.
Right, and as you are using internal systems to push that out to Github and run Redmine as issue tracker, you actually don't use that much Github specific features that would depend on the platform to continue as-is ;) Loosing issue/ticket informations (when using GitHub internal issue tracking) would be worse.
I am not panicking.
I dont run a web browser on my unit, and I dont give public users access to my unit either, it has no WAN entry allowed at all.
People need to remember these "potential" exploits dont have super powers, they dont bypass other barriers. So yes I do think meltdown and spectre have had excessive public attention compared to other exploits.
I run pfSense on ESXI 6.0 latest update. I removed "kern.vty=sc" of /boot/loader.conf.local (I had this VT issue with pfSense 2.4.0).
Then I upgraded via Shell to 2.4.2 and everything is working fine (No VT issue and no Framebuffer issue https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/7975 )
So thank you for your work!
One question remains: Is pfSense still based on PHP 5.6 and why is it not upgraded to the much faster PHP 7.1.2 or 7.2 (release date on 30 November)?
Regarding the roadmap.
Do we have any approximate timeframe when PFSense 2.5 will be out ? Maybe when a beta will be available for testing ?
Since AES-NI will be required, I want to know how much time to I have until I would need new hardware :)
Thanks a lot,
From the moment an organisation chooses to register a trademark they are obliged to enforce it or they risk losing it.
An organisation cannot write a trademark policy and expect to not have to comply with it themselves. If they do so, they are eroding their own brand.
It is my opinion that the term 'pfSense' can no longer be used interchangeably to describe pfSense commercial products and the pfSense community editions. Each time pfSense is used to describe the community edition it is diluting its validity to the commercial product. If ESF do not enforce this on their own public forum then they risk the community being able to prove that the use of the mark is more commonly used to describe the community edition than the commercial product. This might be important if installations of the community edition outnumber pfSense installations.
I am not a fan of RedHat, but I understand why the company decided to distinguish their commercial product from the community edition by creating the FedoraProject.
Are you an attorney?
If you're not an attorney, have you consulted with one on this?
You're wrong, but this is not the venue to explain how.
I have another small comment that relates to the section on page 35 "RA TAP Bridge" that is worth mentioning
is that neither Android or IOS supports TAP in the current API. (tried Android 6.0.1 and IOS 10.2.1)
I mentioned that on slide 7.
Yep you did, I could see that now. Maybe a reminder on that page could have been done but lets just drop it
as you have already mentioned it elsewhere which was most important. :-)
I suppose new subforums will be created to match every additional language?
Want to lure out those Klingons hidden all over earth? Neat.
If memory serves Gonzopancho once said that he only creates forums for languages he has someone for to speak/understand.
Reminder: This is today, and we'll be covering a basic squid/squidguard/lightsquid configuration along with HTTPS interception using either splice (no CA required) or bump (MITM), and AV.
I may have to skim over some parts that overlap the old hangout so we have more time to talk about new topics