It will create a new cert if you run that command. It will be the same type of cert as the initial one but not actually the same so you would need to agree to allow it again as you do when you first connect.

@MakOwner said in CE 2.7.2 to CE 2.7.2 routing issue: @Stewart pfBlockerNG MaxMind - MaxMind now requires a License Key! Review the IP tab: MaxMind settings for more information. @ 2024-02-29 16:15:40 Once an hour. I have turned off everything I can find about IP. I think it now also requires an Account ID in addition to the License Key be provided to download updates. I think this new requirement took effect in January of this year. I had to make a recent change in the Suricata IDS/IPS package because of the MaxMind authentication API change.

@Jhosin running some 10.x network on the same L2 network as your 192.168 network not really isolating them.. You need to physically isolate these networks.. Or you need to vlan them.. While you can run multiple IP ranges on the same L2 - this does not provide for actual isolation.. If you are worried about device X accessing device Y, they really need to be actually on different L2 network.. Not just different IP ranges.

There isn't really anything specific to that. On the 2100 you would need to add the VLAN interface in pfSense. Then add that VLAN ID as tagged in the switch setup so it's passed through to the AP. And of course add the VLAN to the AP but that's in the Unifi config. Steve

Mmm, might not be possible then. If you had enabled Auto Config Backup that would have it.

You can purchase a Plus sub from the store: https://shop.netgate.com/products/pfsense-software-subscription-tac-lite-support

BTW, reading that using VPN might be the safest way, perhaps one thought might be to set up dedicated raspberry Pi like devices on each network. Just a thought either in addition to using the one of pfsense or as an alternative. I haven't spent enough time learning more about VPNs even though I use the one on pfsense daily.

@Sasquatchv you neglected to mention what ISP you are with. For PPPoE you only require the Router in Bridge mode then configure PPPoE on pfsense. Let the Router pass thru the modem and don’t configure PPPoE on the Router itself as the PPPoE with have two Open Sessions and majority of ISPs in UK, Ireland and Europe uses RAS/RAAS which will cause the Auth on PPPoE Session to fail.

@MoonKnight oh I still have my cmd window open all the time.. But I also have the wsl prompt open - I use it for whois multiple times a week for sure..

@stephenw10 Actually we see this across multiple physical locations but all being run by the same hosting company. I'll keep an eye on it and come back to you, if we find another occurrence outside this scope.

Backtrace for reference: db:0:kdb.enter.default> bt Tracing pid 12 tid 100127 td 0xfffff8000908b000 kdb_enter() at kdb_enter+0x3b/frame 0xfffffe02399d78f0 vpanic() at vpanic+0x19b/frame 0xfffffe02399d7950 panic() at panic+0x43/frame 0xfffffe02399d79b0 trap_pfault() at trap_pfault/frame 0xfffffe02399d7a00 trap_pfault() at trap_pfault+0x49/frame 0xfffffe02399d7a60 trap() at trap+0x29d/frame 0xfffffe02399d7b70 calltrap() at calltrap+0x8/frame 0xfffffe02399d7b70 --- trap 0xc, rip = 0xffffffff80f7eb95, rsp = 0xfffffe02399d7c40, rbp = 0xfffffe02399d7e40 --- pf_test() at pf_test+0x1ef5/frame 0xfffffe02399d7e40 pf_check_out() at pf_check_out+0x1d/frame 0xfffffe02399d7e60 pfil_run_hooks() at pfil_run_hooks+0x90/frame 0xfffffe02399d7ef0 ip_output() at ip_output+0xa53/frame 0xfffffe02399d8020 ip_forward() at ip_forward+0x2c3/frame 0xfffffe02399d80c0 ip_input() at ip_input+0x724/frame 0xfffffe02399d8150 netisr_dispatch_src() at netisr_dispatch_src+0xa2/frame 0xfffffe02399d81a0 ether_demux() at ether_demux+0x15b/frame 0xfffffe02399d81d0 ether_nh_input() at ether_nh_input+0x32c/frame 0xfffffe02399d8230 netisr_dispatch_src() at netisr_dispatch_src+0xa2/frame 0xfffffe02399d8280 ether_input() at ether_input+0x26/frame 0xfffffe02399d82a0 vmxnet3_rxq_eof() at vmxnet3_rxq_eof+0x752/frame 0xfffffe02399d8330 vmxnet3_legacy_intr() at vmxnet3_legacy_intr+0xe0/frame 0xfffffe02399d8360 intr_event_execute_handlers() at intr_event_execute_handlers+0xe9/frame 0xfffffe02399d83a0 ithread_loop() at ithread_loop+0xe7/frame 0xfffffe02399d83f0 fork_exit() at fork_exit+0x83/frame 0xfffffe02399d8430 fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0xe/frame 0xfffffe02399d8430 --- trap 0, rip = 0, rsp = 0, rbp = 0 --- But, yes, many many things have been fixed since 2.4.5 so test in a current version. Also check the VMWare hypervisor and VM versions you are running.

Yup, someone probably has this working. Unfortunately I don't think I have any way to test it here.

Killing states by ruleID, or lack thereof, is probably a legacy option. pfctl has been extended a lot since pfSense was released. Or it could be that the ruleID field itself is quite new. That used to be hidden so killing states by it would have been confusing at best. It looks like pfctl can kill states by ruleID now so that could be a feature request.

We contain this by creating NAT rules on an off port from a specific IP/network that point to an internal interface (such as the LAN or Mgmt VLAN). That way there is no external attack surface. Alternatively, use a VPN when possible.

Yup that's a fun* one! More than 4 vmx NICs in esxi changes the PCI device ordering. Crazy.

Ah I see, that's a special case.

@jeffsmith82 said in Login security - phishing resistant MFA: .... From what I understand you can list multiple sites against the same key at creation time though I might be wrong. I don't believe the standard allows you to do this. Each passkey\registration is tied to a relying party which would be the current site you are accessing. You need to directly access the other servers (over HTTPS) to create registrations unique to them. If for example you access https://fire01... then the passkeys are scoped only to that FQDN and won't be presented when attempting to login to https://fire02... You would need to register a key for each server, or a common front-end that they all share. If you create on the secondary it will get overwritten by when the config syncs from the primary to secondary i would assume. It should not, my pending implementation allows you to register multiple times for the same user, which in theory should allow for other sites to be used. The only potential challenge I see is that my implementation verifies the FQDN for registration based off the configuration files (system/hostname + system/domain) . So i'm not sure how your HA deployment deals with that on the config side for both servers. Something that would need to be tested.

@stephenw10 said in Compiling and running 3rd party software on pfSense: I would expect to see at least some sort of error in the boot log when the driver attaches if the module is rejected as unsupported. Apparently you're, right: No messages were logged and - against expectations - the Zaram XGS-PON ONT SPF+ module works beautifully in my X710-DA NIC. Perhaps because it's the Intel branded version, perhaps not. But at this moment, there's no problem to solve, but that you very much for your input!

@stephenw10 said in LCP: no reply to echo request(s) Help: It looks like there's no response at all so I'd check the basics. Is it actually using the correct interface? Is the modem functioning correctly for PPPoE? I restarted the isp fibre modem that didn't help but weird when I removed the cat 6 an put it back in it started working. Weird.. Going to check the cable next an see.