@oldschoolrouterjockey said in SG1100 on 22.1 updated to 23.01, basically a brick:

PHP Errors:
[30-Apr-2023 00:49:25 Etc/UTC] PHP Fatal error: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot access offset of type string on string in /usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc:1013
Stack trace:
#0 /usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc(6466): pfb_build_if_list(true, false)
#1 /etc/inc/pkg-utils.inc(715) : eval()'d code(3): sync_package_pfblockerng()

Uninstall and reinstall pfBlockerNG

Download/install latest System Patches package.
Install all recommended patches.
Reboot.

@gstlouis Bad cookie? Try a private or different browser.
Could it be trying to redirect to https?

@richvalleywirelessisp Not here, I have often wondered why there is so much fuss around mbuf's as even on my busiest devices they remain extremely low, what type of usage tends to increase mbuf usage? If you find the answer to that question it might help you out aside from the obvious of increasing the limit.

Hmm, the difficult part there would be disabling the IPv6. That won't happen unless you have dynamic IPv6 and it loses it's address when the WAN goes down.
Mmm, I'm not sure how that could be done in the current code. 🤔

Thanks for your help so far,

what ever happened during last installation, I reinstalled pfSense and it works now!
As I tried to hack my own firewall and the logs were empty I recon there must be s.th. wrong...

And I gonna make a factory reset also on my switch after I made so much, some times stupid, changes on VLANs and routing forward and back...

FYI: I decided to use virtualization, because I'll need a witness Server later on and not to have too much hardware around...
I'm also not familiar to bhyve and not too deep into UNIX, but Installation is quit easy.
UNIX & bhyve needs so little resources, so you can run multiple Servers, web, DB, LDAP ... on one little 4Core Celeron (If you don't have too much users).

Thanks again for your support so far, maybe there will come up further questions...

Regards
Thorsten

@stephenw10 That seems to be what was causing my problems.... thank you!

The replacement for the NewBox works flawlessly... Guess we are tossing this one up to the who done it gods -_-

No that's fine at first boot. It can't check the remote pkg version until the dynamic repo data has been pulled in.

Thank you so much @stephenw10 . My boss insisted over and over and over again it was a PFSense issue, and while I was confident in the PFSense config, I, being the junior IT person I believed him. Your help got me the info I needed to convince him to look outside PFSense and wouldn't you know it, it was the windows Firewall that's his area that was the issue. The Windows firewall on the machines didn't allow ping responces outside their local subnet.

Thank you so much again @stephenw10 you rock!

@thebear Ah, the order was incorrect! Could have known that :(. Changed the order and will do some further testing; let you know!

Ah, good result.

Bad request like that implies the client has an invalid certificate. It may have just not pulled a new cert. Running: pfSense-upgrade -c would correct that.
If you still see errors send me your NDI in chat and I'll check it.

@cappie said in pfSense Plus 23.01 : Unable to gather system activity (1):

I linked to that earlier

Doh, missed that. 🤦

@ts_itops so you take your phone from network X to network Y, and then on Y you see a storm of retrans still trying to talk to IP 192.168.1.100, even say when your now on 192.168.2/24 ?

Or your seeing this traffic on network X, even though your phone is no longer on the X network?

And this traffic comes from pfsense, or goes through pfsense? If it comes through or from pfsense then yeah the arp cache on pfsense would still think phone IP with mac xyz is still there and sure could continue to send traffic even if phone is no longer on the network. In such a case then sure lower arp cache time on pfsense would lower the amount of time such traffic could be sent.

@nogbadthebad said in Using RADIUS server but on which device?:

Out of interest how many access-points do you have ?

I have a total of 5 Cisco 1700 Series access points connected to the controller

@stephenw10 Um, I do tend to go a wee bit overboard on the pfBlockerNG lists... ;-)

Thank you for your kind reply.

I forwarded your suggestions to our dev team.

For now this ticket is closed.

Thanks again.

Yeah the VLAN interfaces are treated exactly like any other interface; you can apply firewall rules to them individually.

@stephenw10 This was what i was going to respond to you with in my 2 cents comment but i let it go.
The redmine is spot on. If you are doing a Multi-WAN set up than as part of the configuration you should, explicitly, enable gateway actions because thats the whole point. Otherwise, keep the gateway action disabled.
The RRD graphs are very valuable so i would keep the monitoring enabled for sure.

Thanks again for your help. I think you're 10/10 with my issues now? 😊

I would replace it.