Update. If I set: http://66.111.2.169/_updaters/ (one of the IPs resolved for the A-records updates.pfsense.org) as "Firmware Auto Update URL" it works… so, at 99% there is something wrong on the 208.123.73.82 mirror. Ciao, Michele

I am using it but I get a high number of MISSes and it doesn't appear to be caching much at all. I haven't looked into it further but I guess it probably has something to do with most websites serving dynamic content. ..or perhaps it has something to do with cache-control timings. http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/DynamicContent

@razzfazz: Definitely looks like there's something funny going on with the NanoBSD file links at http://updates.pfsense.org/_updaters/amd64/. There are also two copies of all the NanoBSD-related hash files, one set with Sep-2013 time stamps and one with Apr-2014 ones… It looks like someone changed the filename format: latest-nanobsd-vga-1g.img.gz  <- 2.1  - 15-Sep-2013 13:46 latest-nanobsd_vga-1g.img.gz <- 2.1.1 - 04-Apr-2014 00:32

I have finally understand it and get it working up, thanks to you guys!!!!  ;D haha thanks a lot guys, wohoo…now time to  conduct some experiment, see you around guys.

Pls see attachment [image: pfSense.jpg] [image: pfSense.jpg_thumb]

So what was it? :P

@cirkit: As I went through the thread I understand it is easier and faster to reinstall and restore config.xml to the second harddrive but does this method automatically install all packages and rules associated to them. Say for eg I have squid + dandguardian + sarg + nut + cron. As I understand it yes, it does. I tried it twice, but it didn't work out for me; it kept on installing and deinstalling and installing. Which made me conclude it is sort of 'macro-wise' replaying all config changes done (or something like that, I am still a noob  ;D). I ended up doing fresh installs. What I could recommend is backup all sections of the config individually (see GUI); that did come in handy for me for restoring the static IP's in my LAN's. For the remainder, I just manually reinstalled everything.

@notgeorge: Just submitted a bug request + suggested workaround & fix that seems to address the issue with the wireless interface defaulting to OPEN instead of setting WPA2 properly. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3562 Hasn't completely gotten 802.1x working, but it's probably a step in the right direction and at least I can get WPA2 with PSK to work properly. Thank you very much for your feedback. This issue was that serious for me that I have decided to open a new thread for it: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=72483.0 Within this thread ermal has fixed the problem some 2.1.1-PRERELEASE snapshots ago. And 802.1x authentication is still working as expected with the latest 2.1.1 snapshot (i386 nanobsd) from 2014-03-26. Therefore I  am regarding this issue as solved  :) Regards, Peter EDIT: I have just done some quick search on github. I am not very experienced with github but I strongly suppose, this commit of ermal has solved the 802.1x issue: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/315bdf65a12337f150bde11d95824528d90068be

Yep, sounds like both devices are using 192.18.1.1 for their LAN. Change the pfSense LAN address/subnet to something else. Perhaps 192.168.10.1/24. Steve

It looks like there is an issue in a number of places where static routes are processed - the various functionality gets implemented even if the static route is disabled. It does not look to be fixed in 2.1.1 or 2.2 current code, so I raised a bug report: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3560

@cmb: For all I know, there are back doors built into those packages. The fact that person has refused for years to commit that work to our main package repo where we can build the ports from known-good source is telling I think. Not to mention anyone pointing there has had numerous problems with that repo in general, given it's on some free hosting somewhere and frequently goes down. In case someone still does not take the above warning seriously, here's a quick look at the domain from where the packages are distributed: [image: 34sikn6.png] Sure like hell I'd host a security project there or install something from there on my firewall… oh yeah, absolutely... [image: 30jqptg.jpg]

Information is very good information I do not know

Thanks :)

192.168.1.1/24 is the default LAN IP. The 2D13 defaults to: LAN IP 192.168.1.1 DHCP server on LAN giving out addresses to whoever plugs in. Allow all on LAN rule DHCP client on WAN asking the [ISP|upstream router] for an IP address. Reset to factory defaults Plug the laptop into the LAN port - it should get an IP address Browse to 192.168.1.1 Login admin/pfsense Follow the bouncing ball through the setup wizard.

(It looks right but why TF doesn't it work?!!?!?) Because the pfSense LAN IP is not a gateway from pfSense to anywhere. A "gateway" in network terms is an IP address on another box, that gets you closer to other destination subnets. If you set it to yourself, then packets can go into a bit of an infinite spin, and exhuast their TTL. When you have other private subnets behind LAN, you could, in principle, have pfSense LAN gateway set to the other router on LAN that gets you to those "back-end" subnets. But pfSense does not need that to be done. I think the real problem that blows it all up is selecting LAN gateway as "default gateway" (or when pfSense kindly does that for you without you realising). In any case, on pfSense never set a gateway on a LAN-style interface.

I tried it. Didn't work. My wan interface should be my bridged adapter right at the virtual box network settings? Our ISP originally gave us  a static ip, wouldn't that be a problem if i set my wan to dhcp?

@alieas: except I don't know how to do a fresh install so I guess I'll have to learn that first. You can use the serial memstick from Netgate for that (http://firmware.netgate.com/firmware/memstick/) but it shouldn't be necessary. @alieas: I'm thinking the SSD might be setup in the same dual-boot partitions as the CF.  I guess I would go about that through the console to see if a boot option comes up? It's not setup that way. If it were, it would be running NanoBSD, not a full install.