• pfBlockerNG-devel v3.0.0 - No longer bound by Unbound!

    Pinned
    94
    10 Votes
    94 Posts
    96k Views
    GertjanG
    @flepti said in pfBlockerNG-devel v3.0.0 - No longer bound by Unbound!: my setup too You mean you use pfSense 2.4.5 and "007" fBlockerNG-devel ? Easy solution : upgrade ?!
  • Firewall Rules Order

    Pinned
    34
    0 Votes
    34 Posts
    25k Views
    V
    so happy to find the explanation relating the tables and lists!! thanks!
  • Bypassing DNSBL for specific IPs

    Pinned
    114
    5 Votes
    114 Posts
    104k Views
    JonathanLeeJ
    @mcury thanks for the reply I will test this soon and yet you know how it works out.
  • Support pfBlockerNG development!

    Pinned
    5
    4 Votes
    5 Posts
    12k Views
    A
    I can not wait to see how he is going to do the mass import for IP4 and DNSBL, I hope its just a simple text doc you can just upload just like you would a backup file on Ublock extension. Looking forward to it. I may have to get some more Ram lol only got 8 gig and I bet doing mass list imports will hit the Ram hard. Great work hope it's coming along well ;) Great job.
  • PfBlockerNG v2.1 w/TLD

    Pinned
    124
    1 Votes
    124 Posts
    277k Views
    E
    It would be really cool if it could automatically update the blocked TLDs based on the spamhaus statistics (https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/) on a regular schedule. I realize that this may be more difficult than it sounds as I cant seem to find a spamhaus TLD feed, just a website. But if we dont dream then it will never happen!
  • PfBlockerNG v2.0 w/DNSBL

    Pinned
    1k
    2 Votes
    1k Posts
    2m Views
    RonpfSR
    @ck42 The entry is related to Firewall / pfBlockerNG/ DNSBL / DNSBL Category Blacklist.
  • PfBlockerNG

    Pinned
    1k
    2 Votes
    1k Posts
    3m Views
    K
    @breeoge said in PfBlockerNG: @belt9: I wanted to chime in here as I just updated from a month old RC to 2.4.0-RELEASE last night and ran into this problem today. I haven't read through all of the many pages of the many threads that seem related to this issue (show how popular pfBNG is!), so maybe this has already been covered. But I've seen several people state that this doesn't happen on ZFS - I have a raidz2 ZFS install, and this happened to me, just throwing that out there. That is good to know. Thank you for the report.  BBcan177 is currently updating it to use SQLlite and this should fix any issues in the future.  In the other thread there is a temp fix posted.. https://create.vista.com/colors/palettes/ Thank you BreeOge Hello my friend. Many thanks to Bbcan177 for keeping the report up to date. as a result of this, in principle, the given problems are corrected.
  • Fresh install pfblockerNG on pfSense 25.11 RC a lot problems

    22
    0 Votes
    22 Posts
    210 Views
    tinfoilmattT
    @Gertjan FWIW, the (apparent) default kern.ipc.maxsockbuf is also ~ 4 MB on CE. Presumably OP could've increased this value dramatically—in excess of 10 MB—to match Unbound's configured 'message cache size.' But that's as bad of an idea as arbitrarily increasing the latter in the first place.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    33 Views
    No one has replied
  • New pfblockerNG install Database Sanity check Failed

    64
    0 Votes
    64 Posts
    17k Views
    D
    @BBcan177 Thank you for the kind reminder; I am so accustomed to ensuring Save Settings is checked that I didn't follow your instructions properly (thanks @tinfoilmatt for uploading and highlighting the screen shot). I've properly followed the instructions and the update did not report and db problems. Thank you again! drac
  • Unable to set unbound option on some options in feeds

    3
    1
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    90 Views
    S
    @shady28 Are you maybe looking at IP block list feeds vs DNSBL feeds?
  • easylist nordic no domains error

    pfblockerng easylist
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    92 Views
    F
    @fireodo thank you very much for the help I will look into the sanity check.
  • No blocks on IP

    3
    1
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    104 Views
    tinfoilmattT
    @vicking said in No blocks on IP: Is it a bad idea to have the action set to deny both instead of inbound only? Question is squarely for admin. Per the infoblock which explains, in part, the "Deny Inbound", "Deny Outbound", and "Deny Both" actions: 'Deny' Rules: 'Deny' rules create high priority 'block' or 'reject' rules on the stated interfaces. They don't change the 'pass' rules on other interfaces. Typical uses of 'Deny' rules are: Deny Both - blocks all traffic in both directions, if the source or destination IP is in the block list Deny Inbound/Deny Outbound - blocks all traffic in one direction unless it is part of a session started by traffic sent in the other direction. Does not affect traffic in the other direction. One way 'Deny' rules can be used to selectively block unsolicited incoming (new session) packets in one direction, while still allowing deliberate outgoing sessions to be created in the other direction. In other words: When set to "Deny Inbound", incoming connection requests from WAN hosts are blocked and therefore no state will be created. However a LAN host can still establish state to an otherwise listed IP. If set to "Deny Outbound", outgoing connection requests from LAN hosts are blocked and therefore no state will be created. However an incoming connection request from an otherwise listed IP to an 'open' WAN port can still establish state. If set to "Deny Both", both incoming connection requests and outbound connections requests are blocked and therefore no state will be created regardless of connection direction.
  • is something wrong with pfBlockerNG?

    13
    0 Votes
    13 Posts
    508 Views
    tinfoilmattT
    @netboy said in is something wrong with pfBlockerNG?: After my post, I "changed" DNSBL -> DNSBL mode from "unbound python mode" to "unbound mode" and so far i have no issues. Terrible idea. Moving backwards in development history there.
  • DNSBL blockpage only works with root domain

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    105 Views
    C
    @Gertjan yes, that was an example, a false positive from a list that is not being blocked anymore.
  • DNSBL Resolving Some Domains To 10.10.10.1 But Does Not Log Them

    4
    1
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    135 Views
    D
    @Gertjan Thanks a lot for your help. This really helped me: I'm not using "pfSense pfBlocker Web server logging" (DNSBL Webserver/VIP ) as the "you are blocked web page" only shows up when the end browser user visits http sites, something that doesn't exist anymore on the Internet. All sites are https these days, and https sites can be redirected to "another https web server" like the "pfSense pfBlocker Web server". With that hint I was able to resolve my issue by: Unchecking the Python Group Policy Enable checkbox for the DNSBL Webserver Configuration on the DNSBL tab in pfblockerng. Checking the Permit Firewall Rules Enable checkbox and selecting the appropriate interfaces for the DNSBL Configuration on the DNSBL tab in pfblockerng. Forced Update | All. It now appears that all the blocked domains are appearing on the Alerts tab in pfblockerng. I couldn't find that host name in the "/var/db/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Max_MS.txt" file - where does your "/var/db/pfblockerng/dnsbl/Crazy_Max_Extra.txt:" come from ? I get that DNSBL, and 2 others, from the original maintainer (https://github.com/crazy-max/WindowsSpyBlocker): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/crazy-max/WindowsSpyBlocker/master/data/hosts/extra.txt https://raw.githubusercontent.com/crazy-max/WindowsSpyBlocker/master/data/hosts/spy.txt https://raw.githubusercontent.com/crazy-max/WindowsSpyBlocker/master/data/hosts/update.txt. I really appreciate your help!
  • pfblocker pfb_dnsbl service not starting

    21
    0 Votes
    21 Posts
    1k Views
    P
    It's an issue with VIP creation code in PFBlockerNG. PFblockerNG support is working to remove the VIP creation code in pfBlockerNG and leaving that to pfSense to handle. Stay tuned. https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-ports/pull/1427
  • TLD Domain count exceeded.

    10
    0 Votes
    10 Posts
    2k Views
    tinfoilmattT
    Resurrecting this thread for two reasons: 1.) Because this is where I landed when newly confronted with the topic using pfBlockerNG-devel 3.2.10 on pfSense CE 2.8.1-RELEASE; and 2.) to confirm that the 'issue' and 'fix' here continue to be viable despite the TLD analysis function being considerably modified since the last post in September 2024. Current function @ L7255 of /usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc: // Determine max Domain count available for DNSBL TLD analysis (Avoid Unbound memory exhaustion) $pfs_memory = (round(get_single_sysctl('hw.physmem') / (1024*1024)) ?: 1000); $pfb['pfs_mem'] = [ '0' => '100000', '1500' => '150000', '2000' => '200000', '2500' => '250000', '3000' => '400000', '4000' => '600000', '5000' => '1000000', '6000' => '1500000', '7000' => '2000000', '8000' => '2500000', '12000' => '3000000', '16000' => '4000000', '32000' => '8000000' ]; if ($pfb['dnsbl_py_blacklist']) { array_walk($pfb['pfs_mem'], function (&$value) { $value = $value * 3; }); } foreach ($pfb['pfs_mem'] as $pfb_mem => $domain_max) { if ($pfs_memory >= $pfb_mem) { $pfb['domain_max_cnt'] = $domain_max; } } On a system with 32 GB of RAM attempting to 'analyze' over 24M but less than 27M domains, the line "'32000' => '8000000'" was changed to "'32000' => '9000000'" (i.e., permitting a maximum number of 27M domains to be 'analyzed') in order for the function to complete successfully. Analyzing (and then subsequently loading) precisely this number of domains... Original Matches Removed Final ---------------------------------------- 24270656 21017552 6463516 17807140 ----------------------------------------- ...results in Unbound's stable operational consumption of ~6 GB of RAM and any/all pfBlockerNG 'Reload' options consuming as much as ~6 GB of RAM, concurrently. Therefore one should only attempt this DNSBL hack if they're confident that their system has at least 13 GB of memory 'headroom' (taking into account normal system operation and any other resource-consuming, installed packages).
  • Feed name crossed out in alerts.

    6
    1
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    256 Views
    BBcan177B
    @Zaketis dedup is only Deny Feeds which would also include and GeoIP lists. Aggregation works in separate silos for each type ie: permit or deny etc...
  • pfBlockerNG ASN Validation Issue in Source Field

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    496 Views
    P
    Hello, The issue is resolved! Without me having to change anything / touch a thing , I tried adding an ASN this morning and it worked; the dropdown list appeared. Thank you very much to everyone who took the time to reply. Have a good day, everyone.
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.