Is the NanoBSD version generally as good as normal version? I am wondering if its worth buying a really hard disk instead of replacing the CF. Are there any advantages to this approach? when I setup seemed that this would nice and simple, also takes up less space…

firewall rules don't say oh you can only go in 98% of the time ;)  Your issue is most likely with your actual web server or connectivity to it on your lan side. Does it go down on its ipv6 address?  You know when I see this "Also tried the rule allow IPv4/IPv6 TCP/UDP from * to Webserver port 443 and 80"  I have to think to myself.. WHY??  Since when does your website do anything on UDP for http or https???

Let me try to get this in. Using a second (instance/profile of the same brand) browser, I asked for the pfsense page and was given the login page. However, this page is using a different theme. Comparing the cookies between the two browsers, I find that the first browser has three cookies named PHPSESSID with different 'host' values. Deleting the two obviously wrong same-named cookies got me past the login page. On the first browser, I logged in and was given the dashboard page of the theme I always used. On the second browser, a different theme is shown, yet the General Setup, Theme choice is 'pfsense_ng' in both browsers. Edit: Changing the selection of the theme does not change the theme displayed. Edit2: Correction - the theme changes on the first browser when a selection is made, but not on the second when a selection is made. So, I think the browser was sending too many cookies or the wrong cookie. Suggest that pfSense use a cookie with a name unique unto itself, instead of the common/default PHPSESSID.

@mer: @heper understood, but explicitly stating port forwards would be nice to know. :) It would be, but the only reason to not like port scans is if you have opened ports.

You're misunderstanding what're being reported. Load is relative. If your CPU is running at 100mhz, then it's not hard to reach 75% usage. The reason "load" is high when using minimum is because the CPU is being down-clocked, you are saving power.

Are you doing your testing from a client on LAN, or fro pfSense itself?

What johnpoz is trying to say, is PFSense can block traffic going through PFSense, but not traffic that only goes through the switch.

Yeah, sounds like a plan. (If you want a separate ramdisk for /tmp only, perhaps dig up the pull request on GitHub.)

@cmb: Looks like the physical NIC you're plugging into isn't connected to the VM's WAN NIC. No replies to the PPPoE attempts. If you had any functional connectivity, it'd come back with something other than just a complete timeout. Thanks cmb, your post encouraged me to go back and relabel my NICs.. surprisingly enough, after spending a while troubleshooting (before I posted this) I must have become confused and got them all mixed up.. After re-labling them all I then passed them all through correctly and it seems to be working for now! Thanks again!

@doktornotor: There's a Cron package with GUI. Would probably be less error prone, plus permanent. Yes, use that to create it. @spflipper: sorry "shutdown -p time" -p a schedule every day at time indicate? Just run exactly "shutdown -p now" with cron at the time you want to shut it down. Cron controls the time, just let the shutdown run 'now'. The -p tells it to power off the system.

I'd like to update that I've switch the SD card from SanDisk Ultra (rated at 30 MB/s) to SanDisk Extreme (rated at 45 MB/s).  Boot times went from 6.5 minutes to 3.5 minutes.  Hitting save on some of the pages still takes a bit (hitting save on the Squid Filter General Settings Page takes 50 seconds), but not nearly as long. I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning, though.  I had thought it was 50% faster throughput but running``` diskinfo -tv /dev/da0

It all works fine after the clean install. Thanks for the support :)

No, we don't have any hardware tests of that nature currently. OS-independent testing tools like memtest86 are best.

dude this is really clickity clickity there is nothing special to do in pfsense to allow for remote webgui access.  It by default listens on all ports, you just have to enable wan rule to allow it. You sure your not trying to redirect http to https?  Please post your firewall rules, your gui settings and your not behind a nat right??  You don't have any sort of vpn client access setup on pfsense do you?  Your not trying to route traffic through a vpn or anything. The only thing required to enable remote webgui access is firewall rule on the wan to allow access to the port..  I currently show 53 and 80 open.. If your trying to redirect 80 to 443 its not showing open. Please post the output of sockstat..  And your gui setup section – its just listed as http right??

This was already discussed before - https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=55454.0 If you looking for a central management feature, there's not one (yet).

I run a cron job to backup my config.xml to a local ftp server. Example below: #!/bin/sh cd /conf cat <<end |="" ftp="" 'ftp:="" login:password@ftp.server.com="" backup'<br="">put ./config.xml END To restore, just run a manual ftp session to the backup server and pull down the last good config, removing the package info as jimp suggests.</end>

Well why don't just fix your asymmetric routing.. Simple enough to do with a transit network. Why don't you draw your network - drawing is worth a 1000 words as they say.

Please file a bug about the spamd thing before it gets forgotten… This is insane. Found ~3 GiB worth of crap here after a couple of test installs. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5231 https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense-packages/pull/1086

Found it, Modem Card was in slot 1 and for access to the sim card it has to be in slot 2 i didn't read the manual  :-[