Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    3.1.0_6 UPDATE

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfBlockerNG
    77 Posts 14 Posters 16.4k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      SteveITS Galactic Empire @DefenderLLC
      last edited by

      @cloudified said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

      I guess that's expected behavior

      More or less...I seem to recall a post from BBCan177 a while back, saying it was a bug in pfSense's package system, so he can't fix it.

      Pre-2.7.2/23.09: Only install packages for your version, or risk breaking it. Select your branch in System/Update/Update Settings.
      When upgrading, allow 10-15 minutes to restart, or more depending on packages and device speed.
      Upvote 👍 helpful posts!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • T
        turker
        last edited by

        3.1.0_7. everything is fine, but Old rules are not deleted on widget
        errors.jpg

        DefenderLLCD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DefenderLLCD
          DefenderLLC @turker
          last edited by

          @turker said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

          3.1.0_7. everything is fine, but Old rules are not deleted on widget
          errors.jpg

          @turker Do a force reload and restart the pfBlocker services.

          T J 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • T
            turker @DefenderLLC
            last edited by

            @cloudified
            i do Force reload pfBlocker services and restarted, pfsense restarted. Nothing changed.

            DefenderLLCD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DefenderLLCD
              DefenderLLC @turker
              last edited by

              @turker are you getting any table memory errors? That might indicate that you need to increase your Firewall Maximum Table Entries in the System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT section. I had to increase mine from 400,000 to 1,000,000 to account for all of the pfBlocker lists I have configured.

              J T 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • J
                jdeloach @DefenderLLC
                last edited by jdeloach

                @cloudified
                @turker

                Did you manually create firewall rules for those aliases or did it create them automatically? Check your firewall rules and see if those aliases still appear in your firewall rules, if they do, delete those firewall rules.

                I've seen cases where I created rules with aliases in pfBlocker but didn't delete them and they would still show up in that table, like you are showing.

                DefenderLLCD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • DefenderLLCD
                  DefenderLLC @jdeloach
                  last edited by

                  @jdeloach said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                  @cloudified

                  Did you manually create firewall rules for those aliases or did it create them automatically? Check your firewall rules and see if those aliases still appear in your firewall rules, if they do, delete those firewall rules.

                  I've seen cases where I created rules with aliases in pfBlocker but didn't delete them and they would still show up in that table, like you are showing.

                  I think you meant to reply to @turker.

                  J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • J
                    jdeloach @DefenderLLC
                    last edited by

                    @cloudified
                    Yeah, I just saw that and edited my post. Thanks!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • T
                      turker
                      last edited by

                      1aliases.png 1IP.PNG 1wid.PNG

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • J
                        jdeloach @DefenderLLC
                        last edited by

                        @cloudified said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                        @turker are you getting any table memory errors? That might indicate that you need to increase your Firewall Maximum Table Entries in the System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT section. I had to increase mine from 400,000 to 1,000,000 to account for all of the pfBlocker lists I have configured.

                        One other comment, there has been a lot of discussion in numerous posts on this forum as to what value, Firewall Maximum Table Entries should be. They are several cases where folks have used anywhere from 400,000 to 10,000,000. I think most consider 2,000,000 to be a good number to use but it seems to vary depending on each users system, memory and which/how many lists folks choose to use. I just checked my system and I have 4,000,000, why, I don't know, it works so I don't plan to change it.

                        As far as the default value, that bug/error has been around since day one with this package, even before BBcan177, took over as the maintainer, if remember correctly. I think the pfSense/Netgate/maintainer GODS think it is a low priority fix and have ignored it all these years.

                        DefenderLLCD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • T
                          turker @DefenderLLC
                          last edited by

                          @cloudified said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                          @turker are you getting any table memory errors?
                          No.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            turker
                            last edited by

                            The problem may be caused by me.
                            Rule 5 seems to be assigned to the interface but i have 4 interfaces. I deleted one.
                            Looks like it was assigned to the deleted interface.
                            3.1.png
                            3.2.png

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • DefenderLLCD
                              DefenderLLC @jdeloach
                              last edited by

                              @jdeloach said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                              @cloudified said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                              @turker are you getting any table memory errors? That might indicate that you need to increase your Firewall Maximum Table Entries in the System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT section. I had to increase mine from 400,000 to 1,000,000 to account for all of the pfBlocker lists I have configured.

                              One other comment, there has been a lot of discussion in numerous posts on this forum as to what value, Firewall Maximum Table Entries should be. They are several cases where folks have used anywhere from 400,000 to 10,000,000. I think most consider 2,000,000 to be a good number to use but it seems to vary depending on each users system, memory and which/how many lists folks choose to use. I just checked my system and I have 4,000,000, why, I don't know, it works so I don't plan to change it.

                              As far as the default value, that bug/error has been around since day one with this package, even before BBcan177, took over as the maintainer, if remember correctly. I think the pfSense/Netgate/maintainer GODS think it is a low priority fix and have ignored it all these years.

                              In my case I was getting the error because the default size of 400,000 on my 6100 was not enough for the lists I have configured. The error went away after increasing it to 1,000,000.

                              b68b85ba-7781-4e4b-a815-12bcbad26f2f-image.png

                              S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • S
                                SteveITS Galactic Empire @DefenderLLC
                                last edited by

                                @cloudified said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                the default size of 400,000 on my 6100 was not enough for the lists I have configured

                                A few years ago I documented that BBcan177 posted to double the default, with a minimum of 2 million. It of course depends on the number of entries used and the RAM installed. In theory someone could just use one small list and not need very many at all. Others "block the world" and use quite a lot.

                                It would be nice if the package checked that setting upon install and showed a warning somewhere.

                                @jdeloach said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                As far as the default value, that bug/error has been around since day one with this package

                                The Firewall Maximum Table Entries setting is a pfSense setting...it has nothing to do with the pfBlocker package. Other than, pfB creates table entries. I don't recall when the bug showed up but I noticed it a year or two ago, whenever I made the report. If you think it's been longer I'll just believe you. :) I didn't have any old routers to check...we keep our clients pretty current.

                                Pre-2.7.2/23.09: Only install packages for your version, or risk breaking it. Select your branch in System/Update/Update Settings.
                                When upgrading, allow 10-15 minutes to restart, or more depending on packages and device speed.
                                Upvote 👍 helpful posts!

                                DefenderLLCD J 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                • DefenderLLCD
                                  DefenderLLC @SteveITS
                                  last edited by

                                  @steveits Totally agree. It was be really nice if pfBlocker checked your current table size setting when a list update goes above the threshold.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • J
                                    jdeloach @SteveITS
                                    last edited by

                                    @steveits said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                    @cloudified said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                    It would be nice if the package checked that setting upon install and showed a warning somewhere.

                                    @jdeloach said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                    As far as the default value, that bug/error has been around since day one ....

                                    The Firewall Maximum Table Entries setting is a pfSense setting...it has nothing to do with the pfBlocker package.

                                    You are correct, too damn many pf...... in pfSense/packages.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • S
                                      SteveITS Galactic Empire @keyser
                                      last edited by

                                      @keyser said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                      Rumors have it that it is Netgate that maintains this package now

                                      FYI Netgate has a list: https://www.netgate.com/supported-pfsense-plus-packages

                                      Pre-2.7.2/23.09: Only install packages for your version, or risk breaking it. Select your branch in System/Update/Update Settings.
                                      When upgrading, allow 10-15 minutes to restart, or more depending on packages and device speed.
                                      Upvote 👍 helpful posts!

                                      lohphatL 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • lohphatL
                                        lohphat @SteveITS
                                        last edited by

                                        @steveits

                                        Note that pfBlockerNG and pfBlockerNG-devel are NOT the same package and are on different development tracks.

                                        pfBlockerNG-devel will eventually replace pfBlockerNG but for now they're separate.

                                        SG-3100 24.11-RELEASE (arm) | Avahi (2.2_6) | ntopng (5.6.0_1) | openvpn-client-export (1.9.5) | pfBlockerNG-devel (3.2.1_20) | System_Patches (2.2.20_1)

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • R
                                          rcoleman-netgate Netgate @keyser
                                          last edited by

                                          @keyser said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                          I wonder whats going on here… Rumors have it that it is Netgate that maintains this package now and @BBcan177 is no longer on board.

                                          The thing about rumors... is that they're difficult to prove, or disprove.

                                          TAC doesn't provide support for pfBlockerNG. BBcan is the maintainer. As I understood it BBcan was on paternity leave for the last few months.

                                          What I can tell you is a colleague in TAC wrote a patch for the issue that was effecting logging (IIRC) and I think that's where people are thinking it's now a Netgate product. It was a patch, nothing more.

                                          Ryan
                                          Repeat, after me: MESH IS THE DEVIL! MESH IS THE DEVIL!
                                          Requesting firmware for your Netgate device? https://go.netgate.com
                                          Switching: Mikrotik, Netgear, Extreme
                                          Wireless: Aruba, Ubiquiti

                                          DefenderLLCD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
                                          • DefenderLLCD
                                            DefenderLLC @rcoleman-netgate
                                            last edited by

                                            @rcoleman-netgate said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                            @keyser said in 3.1.0_6 UPDATE:

                                            I wonder whats going on here… Rumors have it that it is Netgate that maintains this package now and @BBcan177 is no longer on board.

                                            The thing about rumors... is that they're difficult to prove, or disprove.

                                            TAC doesn't provide support for pfBlockerNG. BBcan is the maintainer. As I understood it BBcan was on paternity leave for the last few months.

                                            What I can tell you is a colleague in TAC wrote a patch for the issue that was effecting logging (IIRC) and I think that's where people are thinking it's now a Netgate product. It was a patch, nothing more.

                                            Plus he was very forthcoming about the issue and an upcoming patch and how to fix the issue beforehand...

                                            R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.