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

    New pfblockerNG install Database Sanity check Failed

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfBlockerNG
    38 Posts 10 Posters 4.1k 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.
    • M
      marchand.guy @tinfoilmatt
      last edited by

      @tinfoilmatt Nothing relevant in pfblockerng.log, aside from the reported error.
      What I found is that the masterfile has indeed 81362 entries, but the deny files amount to 81364. Comparing the 2, I see that the deny files have 127.1.7.7 listed 3 times instead of 1 in the masterfile. So somehow the code is mishandling the duplicates between the 2 files.

      BBcan177B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • BBcan177B
        BBcan177 Moderator @marchand.guy
        last edited by

        @marchand-guy

        The code should handle the blank file ip placeholder.

        Starts at Line 1232 to 1289
        https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-ports/blob/0acb5dc2ad321340aafdf282a20f9c02762d49d5/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.sh#L1232

        Maybe there is some corner case the code is missing?

        "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

        Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
        Twitter: @BBcan177  #pfBlockerNG
        Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/

        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • M
          marchand.guy @BBcan177
          last edited by

          @BBcan177 I am not a programmer. But a simple "sort -u" of the deny files entries bring them back to 81362. Just saying...

          tinfoilmattT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • tinfoilmattT
            tinfoilmatt @marchand.guy
            last edited by

            @marchand-guy Did you compare your pfblocker.sh to the appropriate branch version?

            What version of pfSense? What version of pfBlockerNG/-devel?

            M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              marchand.guy @tinfoilmatt
              last edited by

              @tinfoilmatt
              2.8.0-RELEASE (amd64)
              built on Wed May 21 19:12:00 EDT 2025
              FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT

              The system is on the latest version.
              Version information updated at Sat May 31 15:09:52 EDT

              pfBlockerNG net 3.2.8
              (yes I tried the -devel version prior to this one. no difference)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                Maltz
                last edited by Maltz

                I'm seeing the same off-by-one error on my system. I'm running the same versions as marchand.guy.

                What is the impact of this error? Does it prevent any functionality?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  madmaxpr
                  last edited by

                  @SteveITS Still seeing this error myself but have no further info. It does seem to function, just with the error being shown when it updates/reloads.

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

                    I was experiencing the same issue too.

                    After comparing /usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.sh from 3.2.0 to 3.2.8, there was only 1 line that changed and it happened to be related to this issue. After reverting that line (#1281) back to the way it was in 3.2.0, the "Sanity Check" works as expected.

                    Here are the lines as they exist in their respective versions.

                    #Line 1281 in 3.2.0
                    if [ "${s1} == ${s2}" ]; then
                    
                    #Line 1281 in 3.2.8
                    if [ "${s1}" == "${s2}" ]; then
                    

                    Edit: Corrected my references to pfBlockerNG version numbers. Thanks @Maltz

                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • M
                      Maltz @TheXman
                      last edited by Maltz

                      @TheXman Wouldn't the 2.7.2 version always evaluate as true, since the string is non-null? It looks like the sanity check was fixed in 2.8.0, exposing some other issue that may have been there all along but was hidden by the broken sanity check.

                      (Edit: I guess the version numbers should be 3.2.0_8 and 3.2.8, respectively, since we're talking about pfBlockerNG and not pfSense itself.)

                      M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • M
                        marchand.guy @Maltz
                        last edited by

                        @Maltz That is an excellent hypothesis!

                        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M
                          marchand.guy @marchand.guy
                          last edited by marchand.guy

                          @marchand-guy Verified hypothesis. The code always reported true before 3.2.8.
                          Good catch

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • tinfoilmattT
                            tinfoilmatt
                            last edited by

                            Looks like dev (@BBcan177) is already reviewing. Good teamwork, y'all.

                            Responsible commit here. Remark indicates it was a cleanup commit. I don't have the coding skills to say for sure, but this pfblocker.php update and this pfblocker_alerts.php update look odd for some reason, in addition to whatever the pfblockerng.sh L1281 fix exposed.

                            @marcosm

                            BBcan177B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • BBcan177B
                              BBcan177 Moderator @tinfoilmatt
                              last edited by

                              I think I found the last issue. The "masterfile" is a list of Filename/IPs. The "mastercat" file is just the IPs only. So it was trying to grep -v (exclude) any lines that start with the placeholder IP. So we need to change the masterfile to the mastercat in this line.

                              Try to change this line from:

                              From:
                              s1="$(grep -cv ^${ip_placeholder2}$ ${masterfile})"

                              To:
                              s1="$(grep -cv ^${ip_placeholder2}$ ${mastercat})"

                              "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

                              Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
                              Twitter: @BBcan177  #pfBlockerNG
                              Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/

                              T M S 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 4
                              • T
                                TheXman @BBcan177
                                last edited by

                                @BBcan177 Thank you!

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • M
                                  Maltz @BBcan177
                                  last edited by

                                  @BBcan177 Success!

                                  Database Sanity check [ PASSED ]

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M
                                    marchand.guy @Maltz
                                    last edited by

                                    @Maltz How?
                                    No change on pfsense.

                                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • M
                                      Maltz @marchand.guy
                                      last edited by Maltz

                                      @marchand-guy I manually made the change to the shell script that BBcan177 described.

                                      M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • S
                                        slu @BBcan177
                                        last edited by

                                        @BBcan177 so next step is a new package for pfSense?

                                        pfSense Gold subscription

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          marchand.guy @Maltz
                                          last edited by

                                          @Maltz said in New pfblockerNG install Database Sanity check Failed:

                                          @marchand-guy I manually made the change to the shell script that BBcan177 described.

                                          Ok, done as well.
                                          Thanks

                                          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • tinfoilmattT
                                            tinfoilmatt
                                            last edited by tinfoilmatt

                                            Thanks, @BBcan177.

                                            Some clear confusion ITT re pfSense system version and pfBlockerNG package version numbers. For posterity:

                                            pfSense 2.7.2 CE - Database Sanity check issue not present, because pfBlockerNG and pfBlockerNG-devel packages are both on "RELENG_2_7_2" branch of pfSense / FreeBSD-Ports

                                            pfSense 2.8 CE - Database Sanity check regression, possibly because branch updated to "devel" for both packages?

                                            (RELENG_2_7_2 branch: pfBlockerNG/pfBlockerNG-devel)
                                            (devel branch: pfBlockerNG/pfBlockerNG-devel)

                                            I think that's what's happened. Maybe someone can give me a sanity check. 😜

                                            The package version numbers appear to have been realigned in pfSense 2.8 CE however. The last package versions of pfBlockerNG and pfBockerNG-devel on pfSense 2.7.2 CE were 3.2.8 and 3.2.0_20 respectively.

                                            But under 2.8 CE, both packages are now currently on version 3.2.8 (pfBlockerNG and pfBlockerNG-devel).

                                            Will both packages continue to be maintained separately and we should expect version numbers to potentially diverge again?

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