@goldsoft said in I am using a self-signed certificate. HTTP is working fine, but HTTPS is not.:

My certificate is the one that comes with PFSENSE

If you had a web site with a self signed certificate, yo would see the same issue : the browser would complain, as the certificate was signed by 'some one' that isn't on his 'trusted signer list'.
When you visit pfSense GUI using the build in auto generated certicate, you saw the same thing.
Easy solution : import the cert into your web browser cert store, and now its trusted.

The thing is : a captive portal, typically, is used for visitors, and you want them to be able to use your wifi.
With a self signed certificate, they should accept your unsigned cert first, or they have to import the cert .... and this is way to impractical.
If you want to use https : get a domain name, and use that domain name to get a trusted certificate with the help of the pfSense package "acme".

Btw : the https login page is only protecting the login page. As soon as the user is logged in, every site he'll visit on the internet is using https anyway. Mail comes in also over TLS.

I'm using https for my captive portal (a hotel) because its more serious to show
"https://portal.hotel-brand.tld" with a nice padlock an no browser complaints, as a login URL as is "http://192.168.2.1/...."
( Yes, I won (rented) "hotel-brand.tld")

You could do this.

@aminbaik

Captive portal, or not, you should know who connects to your network.
Portal users : you gave the login credentials, right 😊

Next time : when give them the login, ask them to give you their device's MAC address.
With the MAC, you can set up a "static DHCP Lease" and from that moment, when a user (person) connects, you == actually : pfSense, will know who it is.

=> or observe the pfSense log Status > System Logs > Authentication > Captive Portal Auth and yo can see what 'login' uses what MAC (and IP) addresses.
=> Or look at the Captive Portal Status Dashboard widget.

With the IP you (== pfSense) can do what is called policy routing.

Captive portals make often use of policy routing, as you do not want the un trusted portal users using your WAN IP. Image these users use infected devices, you'll be having troubles. See this example.

I'm using the captive portal for a hotel, and I should (as I'm actually not doing it right now) route my captive portal users over to a "VPN ISP".
Using a VPN for them can gibe issues, as, for example, Netflix usage could be impossible.
The choice is up to you.

@mra said in Captive portal issue:

My problem is that when connected to wifi1's wifi, the user who needs to log in to wifi2 will also be able to log in to wifi1. In this way, I want to create a user group for wifi1 and connect only to wifi1 captive portal.

I think I have a solution for you.
No radius needed, just pfSense.

Locate Line 263 of the main portal /usr/local/captiveportal/index.php file.
It's an empty line, just before the function

$auth_result = captiveportal_authenticate_user($user, $passwd, $clientmac, $clientip, $pipeno, $context)

where a user name and password are used to check if a user is authorized.

These are your 'zone' names :
zone1: "localzone"
zone2: "wifi1zone"
zone3: "wifi2zone"

Add this single line line :

$user = $cpzone.$user;

83d222f4-9aef-4828-8e72-4032dad7700a-image.png

Now, goto the pfSense User manager.

Example :
Let's presume you have a user called "001" that is allowed to visit your "localzone" captive portal.
Make the user info look like this :

fa0a71c4-6ec4-4059-937d-69e0b99e8fb3-image.png

If user "001" also needs to be able to visit the "wifi1zone" portal zone add another user like this :

2d5831ad-c7db-4e93-a13b-ce20cf95a3a6-image.png

@dochy said in Captive Portal Bandwidth-Max-Up Down Radius:

have you used captive portal RADIUS pfSense-Bandwidth-Max-Up and pfSense-Bandwidth-Max-Down attributes with any authentication system?

Yes.

This captive portal setting is not used :

7f74b54b-516d-4294-bfa4-f057ae5b90ca-image.png

I've a test user, login 'x' and password 'x' set up in FreeRadius.
No bandwidth limiting.

ed13397e-0f07-489b-9708-f6c085e822b0-image.png

When I use this 'x' account, I get what is available. Right now, the real limit is around 45 Mbytes / sec up and down. That limit is imposed by my very old access points.

Now, I add a up and down limit for this user 'x' :

1b91a13f-beea-483d-b9f6-d054e7b2a3f6-image.png

and test again.
Sure enough, I disconnected the actual 'x' connection first, and re connected using user login 'x'.
Result :

e76b9f63-ba97-4d63-8a13-31394d9171fd-Capture d_ecran . 2023-09-21 a 12.45.09.png

I consider this a "it works".
Other captive portal users are not impacted.

@dochy said in Captive Portal Bandwidth-Max-Up Down Radius:

have many users in Active Directory service and i should control bandwith of each user by groups or something like that.

This is what I would do if I needed to figure this out :
pfSense has a build in authentication system, the default build in User manager.
This one is fine for very basic "login + password" checking.

FreeRadius offers more, as you already can see in the in te captive portal settings page :

e1d3242e-f36e-4f3a-82d1-708d6d6b86b4-image.png

So, an initial identification is done, and further more, every minutes 'accounting' is done.
This accounting is : the user id, and also, MAC address, consumed traffic and much more. All this info is send to FreeRadius, who compares in its own 'tables' (files and/or database) the allowed (max) values.
FreeRadius sends back with a 'granted' or 'refused' answer.

This handling, I want to see this in the code or scripts.
FreeRadius is already a complex animal, but I said ones myself : it can't be that hard, as nearly every ISP, phone company and whatever other access that is metered on earth is using Radius already.
So, it can be done. But this aspect is very little discussed on the Internet.
You want to know how to build a web server ? That's easy, as the day you can read (5 years ?) you can find the info on the net - a zillion times.
A mail server ? Same thing - a bit more complex, as everybody can send mail, but actually very few know what really happens, what is needed.
A domain name server (aka : DNS server) : It's actually very easy, as it is ancient technology from the seventies last century, and didn't really evolve since. Take note that DNS is the biggest subject where people think they know what it is, and are fully wrong.
Radius or an authentication server : ? That's a secret. Just look at the config file (sorry : the entire config folder with xxx files in it) of a Radius server. A mess.
Of course, FreeRadius is open source. Still, you need to understand what you read .... what is needed to be done.
I understand that using the source code as a manual isn't really possible for everybody. But for me it's the only sure way to find out how things are done. It can't fail, lie, can't be wrong, is easy to find.
( and better : if you think it's wrong : don't complain, change it ^^ )

Anyway : I can't tell you what pfSense actually exchanges with the type LDAP server - if pfSense sends the "pfSense-Bandwidth-Max-Up and pfSense-Bandwidth-Max-Down attributes" to the LDAP, then you could see that on the LDAP side : just check (as always !) the log.
Does it interact on it ? => Does it send a 'granted' or 'refused' back to pfSense ones the "pfSense-Bandwidth-Max-Up and pfSense-Bandwidth-Max-Down values go over the set limit ?

I use FreeRadius for one simple (stupid) reason : I wanted to know what the 'Radius' thing was.
My needs, a captive portal so I can handle Free Wifi access for a hotel, works just fine if I was using the build in pfSense user manager.
I don't need to 'bandwidth' user or portal clients, as my 5 hotel APs are actually already limiting each user. The main WAN pipe is a 1 Gbits/sec up and down, so there is enough for everybody.
There are at the most 20 hotel clients connected at any time, as it isn't strictly needed any more these days, I've also 4G / 5G coverage.

Sorry for telling you much, and probably nothing.

@BENROFU Perfect, with wifi calling 👍

@oldschoolrouterjockey

Yeah, accepting DNS is a must have. DNS is mostly UDP btw, and rarely TCP.

@oldschoolrouterjockey said in Captive portal Help:

and also 8002

Don't need to do that.
The device will do the "http" (port 80) request initially. There is no need that the portal user needs to know that "port 8002" is used on the pfSense side.
Initial user port 80 traffic gets redirected at the firewall level to port 8002. The portal user's browser will never know it was talking to the server over this port. Or port 8003 when https is used.

# Captive Portal rdr on igc1 inet proto tcp from any to ! <cpzoneid_2_cpips> port 80 tagged cpzoneid_2_rdr -> 192.168.2.1 port 8002

where igc1 is the portal interface, and "cpzoneid_2" is the portal zone ID, 192.168.2.1 is the portal IPv4.
A second portal instance will use, probably, port 8004 and another ID.

http portal mode is ok to "make it work".
Go to the https version, as most browsers will bark, showing warnings that will be errors in the near future, when not-TLS is used for any http traffic.
Also, the RFC1918 Portal IP won't show up anymore, the local pfSense portal host name is now used, because that's what certificates is all about.
Ones "https portal authentication" is set up, your done done with it installation. It will work well from then on.

There is a price tag, as you will need to rent a domain name. Annual fee : less then 5$ / year ?
Before you chose a registrar, make sure that it will work with "Lets encrypt", the pfSense package that will handle the automatic certificate renewal.

Advantage is : portal login goes over https, so there is no need anymore use any SSID security, the traffic is already encrypted. As soon as the user is logged in, all subsequent traffic is also using TLS : all mail, web and whatever uses TLS these days.
And as said above : portal users that want to add their own security : that's where VPN ISPs come in handy. : even you as the pfSense admin can 'see' their traffic anymore, you will have to trust your portal user ( ! ), which is actually a strange situation because portal users are actually 'untrusted' as they can do what they want with YOUR internet connection.

edit :

Purely optional :

If you have the NTP deamon running on pfSense, have it also listening on the portal interface.
Add this :
a555fc6f-40df-4909-b012-516cf32552fe-image.png
to the portal DHCP server (192.168.2.1 is my portal interface IP).
Add a rule like this :

2b7ce0ff-e511-460e-a7c2-805bd12a5826-image.png

to the portal firewall so portal users can use the pfSense NTP if they want to.

@Gertjan

@Gertjan said in Setup a Captive portal for PON Network:

I know this isn't what you want to achieve, but a captive portal 'wants' to use/see the actual client IP and MAC addresses.
A captive portal, on the pfSense side, is just a set of firewall rules. And these need these two, as there is not else to handle upon.

Hi Gertjan,
I've done to setup the whole system, and it worked.
However, now I consider to use a separate DHCP server, not rely on pfSense. Could I deploy this model? And How to setup network connection between DHCP server <--> pfSense <--> AP?

Thank you!

@Gertjan By See this "Allowed IPs, placed in the cpzoneid_2_allowedhosts anchor do not seem to use the attached pipes, pipes that should limit the flow speed." I now knew that you know it does'nt work. Which needed to be fixed :) And I am waiting when the stable version will be released which have these problems corrected. THanks

@Gertjan
What I mean is that the users are outside the work environment and through the Internet and Openvpn they can connect to the WAN interface through Public IP and access the LAN network where files and other things exist in the work environment.

Everything works fine, I just wanted to be able to limit bandwidth and amount traffic for users and I noticed that Freeradius can't limit without CP enabled and the problems I mentioned above occur when CP is enabled on the Openvpn interface. has it.

How do you limit amount of traffic for users who have been authenticate through Freeradius? I enter traffic and bandwidth daily in FreeRadius, but it doesn't work. This part only works when CP is active on the desired interface and users log in through CP that interface.

When the user is authenticated through CP and Freeradius, everything works, but when only Freeradius is used to authenticate users, the bandwidth limit options do not work, and the user has no limit.

I want to implement the following scenario, but I am having trouble.

Untitled.jpg

Openvpn Client from internet >WAN public IP > Pfsense > Openvpnserver> Captive Portal> Authenticate with freeradius > Access to My LAN

Everything is correct and users can connect and access the LAN network, but it is not possible to apply a limit to the traffic of users in Freeradius, there is an option to apply a limit in Freeradius, but it does not work on its own, and it must be used in addition to CP from This option is used. For this reason, I have to activate CP for Openvpn next to freeradius so that I can use the restriction option in freeradius, but it is not possible to activate CP on the Openvpn interface, I am now looking for a solution to apply the restriction to users, a requirement to use I don't have CP and any solution that can apply restrictions is good, but pfsense can apply restrictions to users only through CP and radius, but this method does not work for openvpn users.

I also followed this solution, but this solution didn't work either
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/141034/rate-limit-on-radius-reply-attributes-for-pppoe-connections-not-working

@Gertjan
Okay , Thank you for help

@Gertjan

Your solution involving the modification of the captiveportal_blocked_mac function in the /etc/inc/captiveportal.inc file has been tested successfully.

Following your guidance, I implemented the updated function you provided. The modifications have brought about the desired outcome, enabling us to effectively block MAC addresses using mask values.

Your willingness to share your knowledge and solution has not only resolved the technical challenge but has also showcased the strength and support of the community. I appreciate your dedication and time spent on investigating and addressing this issue.

Thanks again.

Please check here for a tutorial installing Freeradius with a modern Web GUI:
https://administrator.de/tutorial/freeradius-management-mit-webgui-6972997853.html

@viktor_g Why you are talking about custom error page while the CORS issue with PORTAL_ACTION URL?

@hsrtreml

Google gave me a good tip.
I asked : Mac Pro OS 12.6.8 captive portal connect and found a probable issue.

The thing is : you've probably used this device already to the SSID and router/firewall pfSense when there was no captive portal activated. So your MAC is not going tot auto prrtal detects, as it knows that that isn't the case - but now it is.
Solution : delete the SSID profile in your MAC, and connect again. This time, the captive portal detection will work (because it's, after all, a new 'unknown' network).

@Gertjan
hello,
thank you for your suggesion
i will try to scan the disk

@prochid thank you

@Gertjan

Thanks to reply..

@mindf

No DHCP .... No MAC filtering / let's hope the client can still do some DNS against 10.1.1.1, as that would give you (might give you) the "auto portal login page".
I guess that's not possible as your devices use static IP settings.

For me, the captive portal is a LAN NIC thing.
Wireguard, is a WAN thing.

I've been using an OpenVPN client for a while, and my setup was : LAN devices are all using the WAN, this was the pretty straight classic setup.
And all Captive portal users on NIC LAN2 (another LAN) are routed out over the OPENVPN client (so tunneled over my WAN) and ended up somewhere in {whatever I had chosen as an end point}.
I presume that 'OpenVPN' or 'Wireguard' is just a choice, both should work.

When you say

@mindf said in [Captive Portal] No internet access after successful authentication:

I have configured Wireguard with captive portal

what do have to imagine ?
What I've said above ? Different ?

Btw :

cpzoneid_2_auth/10.1.1.2_32 rules/nat contents: ether pass in quick proto 0x0800 l3 from 10.1.1.2 to any tag cpzoneid_2_auth dnpipe 2000 ether pass out quick proto 0x0800 l3 from any to 10.1.1.2 tag cpzoneid_2_auth dnpipe 2001

that looks fine. It's a authenticated portal user.

The next hurdle would by : the rules you have on the GUI portal interface firewall list.
If that one contains a pass (all), then your traffic enters the interface, is in the 'system' and ready to be routed (out == leaving some other interface).