How are you testing? From Diag > Auth?

That's helpful, thanks. I am recreating the rules on pfSense B, rather than trying to import them.

pfSense B currently has two em NICs but I will be adding two vmxnet NICs in the next maintenance window, then two more in a future maintenance window. I will be watching for reordering as they are added.

Yes, I completely agree with that. Having pfBlocker create aliases only and assigning them yourself allows you to see exactly what's happening. That's how I use it.

Steve

Try a port test to the site from pfSense. That should work though if other clients behind it can access the site.

Run packet captures to see what's happening. Is traffic for the site actually arriving at the internal pfSense interface?

Is it leaving the WAN? If not where is it leaving, if anywhere?

I assume you do not have Snort or Suricata running?

Steve

@WAR10CK said in Intel gigabit ct Desktop not detected:

AHCI enclosure management bridge

OK, pfsense recognizes the netcard, but why is it saying : AHCI enclosure management bridge under interface em0.
There is no link when I plugin the cable to em0.

The cable works fine in em1.

If they're set up to sync configurations (HA sync).

Does your WAN have a public IP? miniupnpd cannot open port forwards from private IPs.

You should at least see the logs from miniupnpd starting in the system log when you save the config or restart the service.

Steve

That matches the string anywhere in the port number, same as leaving it as 19 which isn't what OP wanted. They wanted it to only match port 19 and no others, so using ^19$ is the way to do it.

@NogBadTheBad Thank you for sending this documentation my way!

As it turns out, what I (originally) wanted to do can be accomplished using an "Alias".
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/firewall/aliases.html?highlight=alias

You were right. Interface Groups serve an entirely different purpose.

pfSense should host the captive portal.
Routers on that network will break things.

@moxi said in Some traffic is escaping from vpn!:

but why the firewall rule of: ( block any out on wan) never works?

Can you show that rule (an image ;) )?
Where did you put that rule ?

A final solution will be : use the VPN client on the device where you use the VPN. That is, if that device isn't a TV set or something like that.

@moxi said in Some traffic is escaping from vpn!:

I would start thinking that this whole game of privacy protection is not 100% legit

You start to understand. There is hope for you.
You really believed the VPN publicity ??

The outbound NAT rule would be on the WAN at site A with source 10.2.0.0/16. So that traffic from site B can be NAT'd to the site A public IP in order to reach the site C public subnet.

Steve

I think the best you’re going to be able to do here, to avoid a login, is to have your browser (Firefox, Safari, Chrome) save the login info for you. You DO NOT want to give access to your firewall interface without a login. That’s really bad.

Jeff

@akuma1x okay thanks I will research a bit. the appliance VM is in azure.

You could diff the xml against the most recent backup file like you can in config history. That will show you only what's changed.

Vitualize a FreeNAS sever on that host computer an run Plex as plugin within there.

Although, i am NOT a follower of setup, that have all functionallity on one system! A router is a router, a NAS is a NAS and a media server is a media server. pfSense is NO media server at all!

Good to hear. 👍

Thank you for responding @coatmaker618

Yes, I guess there are three questions in there so thanks for splitting the questions up for me.

I think I have gotten a little further towards getting some information on this. I have got my pfsense to recognize a USB device as a WAN port which I can configure. I now have to configure the multi wan part now.

As for the third question, yes that's the interesting one and I am not having any joy finding any help on that one.

The scenario is as you describe. I don't want all my devices to take advantage of the failover WAN because it will be a 4G device with just a tiny amount of data allowance on it. I will keep it topped up for the eventuality of someone cutting up my cable internet while I am not at home so the home can still talk to me and let me know what is going on.

For the failover, out of the 50 or so devices that currently use the internet, I only want to allow my IP Camera NVR, my home security system and smart door lock to have access (all with dedicated local IPs). This is to get notifications of any issues while I am out of the house and also jump onto my IP camera feeds if needed just to see whats going on.

Hope this paints a good picture of what I intend to do.

So if there is anyone out there who knows how to handle multi wan ports in this configuration, please let me know.

@slimypizza said in Home setup issues with WiFi (advice):

The thing I like about it relative to the Ubiquiti is that you don’t have to run an ethernet cable to the satellites.

You don't have to run a wire to the unifi AP either - you can do wireless uplink, its just ALWAYS going to be better to run a wire to your other AP if possible. ALWAYS!!!

Not say orbi or any of the other mesh systems out there won't work - but good luck doing anything above very basics.. Can you even do vlans on your wifi with Orbi - no.. So for many of us that have chosen to go with a more robust network and want to do stuff as basic as vlans - those sorts of wifi systems just don't cut it..

Why would you choose to run a Porsche for your router/firewall - and then put some crappy walmart special tires on it ;) And only do 55 mph..