Subcategories

• Cache/Proxy

  Discussions about packages which handle caching and proxy functions such as squid, lightsquid, squidGuard, etc.
  4k Topics

  21k Posts

  E

  I even tried deleting and creating a new certificate. Any suggestions?
• IDS/IPS

  Discussions about packages whose functions are Intrusion Detection and Intrusion Prevention such as snort, suricata, etc.
  2k Topics

  16k Posts

  B

  It was all CVE fixes in the PHP GUI part of the package. See the Redmine ticket here: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/16414.
• Traffic Monitoring

  Discussions about packages that handle bandwidth and network traffic monitoring functions such as bandwidtd, ntopng, etc.
  572 Topics

  3k Posts

  K

  @Antibiotic No it’s not possible with NtopNG as it is not a Netflow collector. You need nProbe for that which will “translate” recieved netflows into flows that NtopNG understands and can visualize (with very very little detail might I add as Netflows has no additonal information apart from sender/reciever and volume). The NtopNG package and the product in general is more geared towards visualising and recording traffic details from actual packet captures. This contains MUCH more metadata about the sessions than netflows (DNS names, protocol information and myriads of other things). But pffSense Plus has a builtin Netflow exporter if you have an external netflow collector on hand.
• pfBlockerNG

  Discussions about the pfBlockerNG package
  3k Topics

  20k Posts

  V

  @Gertjan Thanks for your reply – that’s also my impression. The point is: I don’t really see any lists right now that are actually “maintained” in the sense of being actively cleaned up, checked for dead domains, categorized, etc. That’s why my main interest is more about the demand: Would curated lists really be a game changer for admins? Would they be more helpful than what’s available today, or are most people already using other alternatives? If so, which ones? And from your perspective, what would be your expectation towards “community lists”? (e.g. reliability, update frequency, categories, fewer false positives?)
• UPS Tools

  Discussions about Network UPS Tools and APCUPSD packages for pfSense
  101 Topics

  2k Posts

  D

  @jhg said in NUT fails to start after 2.7.2 -> 2.8.0 upgrade: Interesting. I would have thought the initial reboot, which occurred as part of the upgrade, would have done the trick, but it took a second reboot, just now, to get things working. Glad you have it sorted. There was no difference in the output of usbconfig show_ifdrv at any point -- before or after unplugging/replugging the USB cable, nor after rebooting. ... Question: What would tell me whether or not a driver was loaded? If there were an attached driver, it should have shown up with the show_ifdrv command. If you use the command and look at the other usb devices, I think they will show attached drivers. I don't expect to see a driver attached to the ups, because there is a quirk that tells the OS to ignore that device (and not attach a driver). Look for idVendor and idProduct in the above output. The Vendor ID for your device is 0764, which corresponds to Cyber Power Systems, and the Product ID for your device is 0601, which is registered as "PR1500LCDRT2U UPS" (don't sweat an exact match for the name). You can see the quirk with the following command: [25.07-RC][root@fw]/root: usbconfig dump_device_quirks | grep 0764 VID=0x0764 PID=0x0005 REVLO=0x0000 REVHI=0xffff QUIRK=UQ_HID_IGNORE VID=0x0764 PID=0x0501 REVLO=0x0000 REVHI=0xffff QUIRK=UQ_HID_IGNORE VID=0x0764 PID=0x0601 REVLO=0x0000 REVHI=0xffff QUIRK=UQ_HID_IGNORE [25.07-RC][root@fw]/root: Your device is third on the list. The HID_IGNORE quirk says to ignore the device and not attach a driver. @jhg said in NUT fails to start after 2.7.2 -> 2.8.0 upgrade: You might consider adding this resolution to the release notes for 2.8. LOL... sorry, I don't have input to the release notes (I don't work here). While I wrote and maintain various packages, including NUT, I'm still just a volunteer. Most packages are actually written by volunteers.
• ACME

  Discussions about the ACME / Let’s Encrypt package for pfSense
  501 Topics

  3k Posts

  A

  Hi, Please help to forward / report the bugs in ACME 1.0 package. Thanks.
• FRR

  Discussions about the FRR Dynamic Routing package on pfSense
  295 Topics

  1k Posts

  J

  Anyone else happen to notice that when configuring BFD, if you create a peer and select a profile - after save, re-edit the peer and the Profile is not represented. It appears as "None". You have to check the raw config to determine if the profile was actually assigned to the peer. This is on 2.8.1 (all packages up to date as of the date/time of this post). UPDATE: if re-edit and save (without re-configuring the profile none to what you want) - the save will strip the profile from the peer.
• Tailscale

  Discussions about the Tailscale package
  91 Topics

  611 Posts

  T

  Hi All, I use HAProxy to redirect to a range of https internal resources, this works really well at the moment through the WAN where I have source limits set up, and I can connect to the internal resources from limited external IP Addresses. Given I have tailscale I would like to basically be able to put custom dns entries in to point these hostnames to my pfsense tailscale IP4 address (100.89.148.118) but I am not having any luck getting this working. At the moment, I am just trying to connect to HAProxy using https://100.89.148.118 but it is getting blocked by the firewall. Sep 11 11:55:58 tailscale0 Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103) 100.89.148.10:53148 100.89.148.118:443 TCP:S I have tried with and without NAT redirecting internally to 127.0.0.1, and I also have rules set up to allow any traffic to and from my tailnets (defined in an alias) but I still keep getting these connections from my other tailscale machines being blocked on the pfsense machine. Can someone give me some pointers on what I am missing because I can see the requests are coming through to the pfsense machine, and in theory the rules should allow it through but I cant see why they don't. I do have tailscale ACL in place, but clearly that is not an issue as the requests are making it through to the firewall. 0/0 B IPv4+6 TCP/UDP TailNets * TailNets * * none Allow across Tailnets 0/0 B IPv4+6 TCP/UDP * * * 443 (HTTPS) * none Allow Tailscale IP4 I also tried adding a EasyRule but because the tailscale0 interface doesn't exist in pfsense it throws an error and won't let me add that rule. Appreciate any help or tips, Cheers.
• WireGuard

  Discussions about WireGuard
  700 Topics

  4k Posts

  B

  @HFADmin If it is no Site2Site-VPN then you don't need any gateways in the first place... If that is true but you want to monitor the connection then you could create dummy-gateways just to ping the remote ip-addresses.