Generally you would not have DNSSec enabled with DoT but only because you will be in forwarding mod for DoT. You should be able to use them together but it's likely far less tested because there's little point.

@michmoor My CyberPower has been stable with the NUT workaround from the thread I referred to previously. [image: 1678219492202-nut-screen-shot-resized.png]

@the-other [image: 1678210804389-f2b8929a-3ac9-43ba-99a2-4e7d6fd6257d-image.png] [image: 1678210826140-e6e9eced-0a1c-41e8-b66e-6752a70d1860-image.png]

@johnpoz said in Questions about setting up a more secure home- and small business network: @stef_r please tell you don’t have idrac exposed to public internet you vpn into the edge? I am aware that exposing the iDRAC interface to the public isn't a smart way to do it! :-) So yes, I have restricted access for only one trusted IP address and only through the VPN connection through the EdgeRouter.

@jonathanlee As soon as cookies are cleaned it's gone. I would say you could install some privacy addons and say absolute no to cookies! And you only keep your cookies from your switches and routers or firewalls and use only that one (browser) for your internal tech equipment. Google Analytics I have never seen on it. I have seen cloudflare analytics also. pfBlocker-NG and/or Squid & SquidGuard may be sorted with some add blocker lists.

@bumzag said in Basic firewall rules for interfaces: I want LAN to have access to every interface indiscriminately, and NET2 to have WAN access, but no LAN access. The block comes before the allow so LAN would be blocked

@steveits fair enough, will just pivot to blocking all and only allowing ports that are confirmed in use, thank you for the confirmation

As the Fritzbox can be accessed and adjusted remotely by your ISP (similarly to most ISP supplied boxes) you can not guarantee your configuration as well as one can with a pfsense box. It is worthwhile with a Fritz!Box looking at the security tab to see what open ports exist and the services supported. Configuring pfsense to work with a Fritz!Box in modem mode is a whole other kettle of fish!

Ok perfect... I would like to keep all the configuration of ACLs, VPN, etc. redoing everything by hand, besides the waste of time would definitely cause errors. Thank you very much

I would not remove the switch if you have multiple devices on the same VLANs talking to each other. The 6100 ports are not a switch. If you have devices connected to them that need to be in the same subnet they would have to be bridged and that uses significant CPU cycles. An external switch can do that without loading the firewall. Steve

Ok, start a new thread for that then it seems unrelated to the notifications issue.

That is the same error we saw from others who had an outdated Home Assistant pfSense integration installed. You will need to update the integration in Home Assistant (or disable it). The error isn't coming from code in pfSense, but code being sent by that pfSense integration, so there is nothing pfSense can do to alter that code. There are several threads for this already if you need more information.

@johnpoz Oh yeah. Go to correct it. Thanx.

@sdugoten said in Register custom hostname by MAC address: Could you please point me to which screen that would do the static mapping? Thanks. Bottom of the DHCP server page. [image: 1678068076987-22781824-e8e8-47a2-a8b6-2d91a794a058-image.png] Also, the easy way to make a static mapping is to connect the device and find it in Status / DHCP leases and convert it to static mapping, to add the desired address and host name.

@jrey I only looked because I was expecting it to comment out the periodic daily line but it didn’t. Then it rewrote the file at boot, still I commented, so I pulled up the patch details. no memory spike the next day so it must have worked. Perhaps crontab write triggers again at other criteria?

@derelict Thanks for pointing this out - we hadn't had a rule on the previous version but added it in before the gateway rule and all is working OK again.

@viragomann I found the culprit, why it only has been on this one unit, I cant explain. It was being blocked by Snort.. 140:20 (spp_sip) Invite replay attack Disabled the rule and it has resolved fine. All 4 units run Snort, only this one has had an issue. Thank you for your help. John