@stephenw10 Good idea on the boot delay. I used 60 sec (did not try 30) and it seemed to work. Thank you!

It's the last thing in the message buffer before the kernel trap: VMware memory control driver initialized [fib_algo] inet.0 (bsearch4#32) rebuild_fd_flm: switching algo to radix4_lockless aesni0: <AES-CBC,AES-CCM,AES-GCM,AES-ICM,AES-XTS> kernel trap 12 with interrupts disabled Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode And it's unusual to see the aesni device loaded at that point. It would normally be loaded during bootup if it was already enabled.

@johnpoz said in Virtual IP subnet cannot connect to internet: @BlueSun said in Virtual IP subnet cannot connect to internet: There's an Automatic NAT Rule, which I don't see You said your outbound rules were auto and it was added, I was just adding that screen for completeness Well, I set the outbound NAT rules to Automatic, but for some odd reason it didn't create the rules you have in your screenshot, so I had to add them manually. [image: 1695017860179-d60a6317-0b25-4106-b407-971b002cdac0-image.png]

Hmm, I'm not sure anything can disable that other than manually. Can you see a change in the config history that disabled it?

You can use igb1 you just can't add igb1 to a bridge. Though I always prefer not to see tagged and untagged traffic on an NIC if possible because it avoids config errors causing problems. Yes, you can still bridge the VLAN interfaces.

@johnpoz it had sandbox folders in it like snapshots of something. I never deleted that. It was really weird. Both V-100 spotlight folders and .trashes had that. I don't expose the NAS it's protected behind the firewall. Could have been a timebomb bug and it never got implemented because I blocked it. I thought maybe someone else has that bug and they don't know what is making the IP show as high risk. I don't even think OS x uses sandbox Microsoft does. Someone has to have seen this weird HDD resources consumption issue too. One can say it's the perfect place to hide. Some hidden folders that no one really looks at on any USB drive that is plugged into a apple OS. An invasive actor might use it for a container to do proxy chains with, or an exit node. The normal users would not think to look at it, they just use the NAS and the NAS uses their Internet without them knowing. That could cause a bad IP reputation without them knowing. I was flat out confused, thinking why is the folders all the sudden so massive in size. Just a weird situation. It's like a scary Halloween Pumpkin bug. Hey, that reminds me of the Metasploit's pumpkin I saw during a lab in October. [image: 1694885760365-screenshot_20230916-103329.png] [image: 1694885843539-screenshot_20230916-103348.png]

@THEVIKING said in Upgraded mobo lost internet connectivity: I have Pfsense router setup to send all traffic thru VPN to 192.168.20.100 (my PC) This doesn't make a lot of sense - so your pc is hosting vpn server? That outside clients connect too? Or your routing your traffic out through a vpn on pfsense (client to some vpn service) You have some vpn on pfsense and your doing a port forward through the vpn? None of these scenarios have anything to do with you changing the mother board your pc and pfsense.. Not one of those scenarios has anything to do with pfsense and you changing your pc motherboard. The only thing that could change on your pc that might effect something you have setup on pfsense is the IP address of your PC, if its still 192.168.20.100 pfsense doesn't give 2 shits what motherboard or OS or anything - it only cares about the IP address.

A D2250 should work it would just be bandwidth limiting for PPPoE. But something like that will already be old, better to start with something newer anyway.

@SteveITS said in Confusion in understanding one of the "Deny unknown clients" setting: We used to have tenants While that seems like a very valid use case.. Thanks for a great example.. But that kind of puts you a bit above your typical home/smb sort of use don't you think ;)

Mmm, in fact it generally work better with mobile devices in my experience. Any recent version of Android or iOS can detect the redirection and prompt the user before they've even opened a browser.

lol yeah, @dennypage with just that it still works.

So was it passing full speed until recently?

That's what I would expect because the system routing table should be correct. Incoming traffic should always come from that route unless you have some route asymmetry somehow. It's the port forwards (NAT) that allows traffic from a single source IP to arrive via any gateway.

Is the OpenVPN server configured to listen on 'any' interface? If you can put a switch between igb2 and that PC? That would solve this. However if you set OPT1 to track interface for IPv6 it will probably stop this happening. Even if you have no IPv6 on the WAN.

No solution yet as far as I know. Any progress here should be on the bug report.

@macaruchi said in Access from internet router to LAN: No, it doesnt So how would you expect pfsense to forward something that never gets to pfsense? Either you don't have the forward setup correctly in the router in front of pfsense, or the traffic is never even getting to that router for it to forward.. You sure when you went to can you see me that the IP it sent the traffic too was the routers wan IP that you setup the forward to pfsense wan IP?

@stephenw10 That makes sense. Thanks

@stephenw10 yup that is a very good viable option. Or use that opt1 for your normal network, because the "lan" has the anti-lock out rule on it.

@stephenw10 Ok, I changed my hard drive. We’ll see!