The update is live now.

Thanks for the quick reply. I read the post before but I did not realize that it will cause this kind of error in pfBlocker.

system, advanced, firewall & nat

@TFTQKX said in NextDNS DNS filtering: It is free as of now. Check out https://nextdns.io/pricing : 300 K requests a month is peanuts .... It might be worth it - can't tell .... but it will not be "free" (for me).

Thanks, From my understanding, that only blocks sub-domains. So if it were "culture.vox.com", then the TLD would enforce that. I'm looking to go in the other direction of blocking URL's following the domain. Like "vox.com/culture"... I could be wrong... of course. Thanks, Steven

You can find which domain is whitlisted in pfblockernG.log [ EasyList_Privacy ] Downloading update [ 12/28/19 23:18:22 ] .. 200 OK. Whitelist: collector-cdn.github.com|csi.gstatic.com|metric.gstatic.com|s.youtube.com|s2.youtube.com| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Orig. Unique # Dups # White # TOP1M Final ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2994 2992 191 5 0 2796 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv4 count=1

@johnpoz said in Database GeoIP [ GeoIP.Dat ] not found. Reputation function terminated.: Even if I knew - I wouldn't to be honest.. Anything that helps someone stay on of EOL product is counter productive.. You should of moved off 2.3.x two years ago when it was announced it was going to be EOL in a year, etc. Ok, agree with You. :) Try to shift pfSense to another server as fast as possible.

@BBcan177 I have a rule ordering problem. When pfblockerng is enabled my ports that I don't intend to have open are suddenly open is this an issue with rule order my rules are one allow rule for a few ips and then the pfblocker block followed by allow rules from pfsense? Would the alias type rules resolve this issue?

Yes, it worked finally, but not as you described. I had both ethernet and wifi turned On and one interface had direct access to the internet, therefore, was bypassing the PfBlockerNG. Now I ran into another problem. :) Everything is working fine, except that one PC is able to bypass PFBlocker. I do not know how but I checked directly and also did Nslookup but it's getting through. All the other workstations are getting blocked except one. This is the firewall rule screenshot [image: 1577358667884-25521629-221e-4d17-b6ee-be1d8464bb60-image.png] Screenshot of NGAlert showing blocked site access from other PC [image: 1577358730969-ed30728e-3c6c-46d1-955d-5b63e2112f57-image.png] Nslookup screenshot from the rouge PC [image: 1577356217122-8419eb6f-0874-4572-99a7-be567b06a391-image.png] From the other PC it shows 10.10.10.1. So its getting blocked there

@Gertjan said in Not able to block youtube using pfblockerng with customlist.: @NollipfSense said in Not able to block youtube using pfblockerng with customlist.: clients are natted on pfSense's LAN Throw away the firmware in these natting devices and put pfSense in place. True, natting after pfSense hides a lot of info. In my case, the natting is before pfSense...(the king of my LAN is the new Mikrotik RB450x4); so, I'll have to monitor IP > Firewall > Connections to see when the AppleTV YouTube app is talking to DNS. Yes, my system is double natted...seems okay with it as pfSense is king of my WAN.

Here's the video that Gertjan mentioned: https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=g0KOcfGicjM However, if you want to administer your box, I am not sure adding the mobile public IP to whitelist will accomplish what you're seeking without special WAN firewall rule. You could use SSH as per here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqRIu2zhoQ However, you won't have the WebGUI. So, as Gertjan suggested and recommended, VPN is the best option especially since you already installed OpenVPN.

@NollipfSense : I guess that he (tries to) ask(s) how to make a very restrictive LAN : only some sites can be visited by the LAN clients, and nothing else. Not sure, though....

If there was an option for the auto IP rules to block first then allow (block/reject/pass/match) then the idea of default deny would be a lot more accessible. Currently the auto rules are all some variety of pass/match/block/reject. So if I want to block some top spammers then allow geo regions all in pfblocker followed by a pfsense default deny rule it isnt automatically possible. Maybe thats a feature @BBcan177 can add someday. Block outgoing by default, allow what is needed.

@RonpfS said in pfblockerng-devel error: Unknown Not listed!: So there is always a window of time when some files go missing from /var/db/pfblockerNG/deny/*.txt, the service will then report the feed as Not listed Okay, thank you for thoughtful explanation...awesome!

@riften said in pfblocker and AD DNS: I've got two Server 2016 VMs running a domain, both with DNS and DHCP on both. No DHCP on PFSense, only DNS Resolver configured. The IPs listed in PFSense in SYSTEM/GENERAL are all my chosen Internet resolvers (not my internal DNS, they are DNS over TLS Internet resolvers). All my clients have as their DNS, my two DNS servers only, and they get this from the DCs DHCP server and scope options. The DCs list each other as their DNS, and have the PFSense box as their forwarder (not conditional, just regular forwarder). If they can't resolve the request, they use the forwarder so port 53 TCP and UDP are allowed via a lan rule applied to an alias for both my DCs, to the lan interface on PFSENSE. All clients port 53 are blocked in PFSense on a rule below that allow rule, just to make sure they don't get directly out for any reason (say if they get infected with something and their DNS is hack-configured to something malicious). Once PFSense gets the request from my DCs, it then uses the configured DNS servers on the general tab, with the DNS over TLS settings set on the DNS Resolver section. And what does that have to do with the original question/problem? That's your workflow, OK. But that has potential problems / oversights as well. But besides, I don't get what you wanted to say/add to the topic with telling your setup. As an additional thought: only blocking udp/tcp53 isn't enough anymore. There are DoT resolvers for client OS' as well that could be used and with Windows (or applications) adding DoH support, that "Pandora's Box" will soon bring fun to all admins debugging DNS failings as well ;)

@Gertjan ok, guys. will do

This is noted and will experiment with this in the next few days when most people in the office are in their Christmas break. Thank you!!!