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

    https://oisd.nl

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfBlockerNG
    59 Posts 8 Posters 10.4k Views 15 Watching
    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.
    • T Offline
      totowentsouth @totowentsouth
      last edited by

      This post is deleted!
      T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • T Offline
        totowentsouth @totowentsouth
        last edited by

        @andrebrait I began a solution for automated test coverage of pfBlockerNG's DNSBL and IP list consolidation. The setup is a little involved and undocumented. I'll flush some documentation for it over the next few days. It is on github at babilon/pfblockerng-tests. I'm now able to trivially run a suite of tests against changes to pfBlockerNG.

        T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • T Offline
          totowentsouth @totowentsouth
          last edited by

          @andrebrait Functionally, everything appears well. I noticed these duplicate calls to shell functions:

          diff --git a/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc b/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc
          index df3dc385c5f2..03e9990d64cd 100644
          --- a/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc
          +++ b/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc
          @@ -9119,8 +9119,6 @@ function sync_package_pfblockerng($cron='') {
           			// Consolidate all exclusions 
           			exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_assemble_exclusions_file unused unused unused {$elog}");
           
          -			exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_assemble_redundants_file unused unused unused {$elog}");
          -
           			// Process Whitelists
           			foreach ($postprocess_dnsbl as $header_esc) {
           
          @@ -9139,8 +9137,6 @@ function sync_package_pfblockerng($cron='') {
           				exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_remove_redundant {$header_esc} unused unused {$elog}");
           			}
           
          -			exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_cleanup_exclusions_file unused unused unused {$elog}");
          -
           			exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_cleanup_redundants_file unused unused unused {$elog}");
           		}
           
          -- 
          
          
          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • A Offline
            andrebrait @totowentsouth
            last edited by andrebrait

            @totowentsouth the function names are slightly different. One set assembles/removes the master exclusions file and the other assembles/removed the master "might make other entries redundant" file.

            Because EasyLists can also contain exclusions, in order to minimize the processed lists as much as possible, I've added a post-processing step to process all files and remove block entries that would be nullified by exclusions, as well as a step to remove redundant entries (e.g. mail.google.com becomes redundant if a wildcard rule for google.com exists).

            The old logic already did that a bit, but in a different manner.

            Or am I missing what you're referring to?

            T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • T Offline
              totowentsouth @andrebrait
              last edited by

              @andrebrait 🤦 my bad on the duplication claim. I shoulda tried <shift># and I'd have seen the difference.
              All is well. I retract my previous claims of issues. Sorry for any inconviences.
              I've applied the latest to all my pfSense boxes BTW.

              E 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E Offline
                emikaadeo @totowentsouth
                last edited by

                Hi @andrebrait
                just wanted to ask if there's any progress in implementaion of Adblock syntax in pfBlockerNG ?

                A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • A Offline
                  andrebrait @emikaadeo
                  last edited by

                  @emikaadeo yes. I went through some issues in my personal life that affected how much time I could put into it, but I should be able to start working on it again, gradually.

                  The implementation does exist and it does work, but it has not been merged yet

                  E 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • E Offline
                    emikaadeo @andrebrait
                    last edited by

                    @andrebrait
                    Thank you for answer.
                    I hope you're OK

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • CreationGuyC Offline
                      CreationGuy
                      last edited by

                      What is the best OISD list to use as of right now on the latest non-deval build?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • T Offline
                        totowentsouth
                        last edited by

                        @andrebrait will you be able to rebase pfblockerng-adblock-clean on top of devel in the foreseeable future? I have been able to make use of patches until I upgraded to 25.07-RELEASE. The conflicts are deep. Oddly the pfblockerNG-devel package is 3.2.7 despite the current refs having 3.2.9 in the Makefile.

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