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

    {Complete} Timebased Rules

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Completed Bounties
    187 Posts 10 Posters 156.2k 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.
    • H
      heiko
      last edited by

      Hello,
      i need the snapshot server to test the build, then we will see if the project is finished.
      Greetings
      heiko

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        sullrich
        last edited by

        Server is down, we're working on it.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          heiko
          last edited by

          I´m waiting and waiting, so i can test snort….. ;D

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • H
            heiko
            last edited by

            we are Online! i will download and test the latest snapshot, i will be post the outcomes…

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Y
              yoda715
              last edited by

              All known bugs are knocked out using latest snapshot. Please test latest snapshot. This latest snapshot should complete time based rules if it meets approval.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • H
                heiko
                last edited by

                Hello Scott´s,

                first, i have a "big problem" with testing it completely out. Here the outcomes. Take a look at the Screenshots.

                1.) The Filter reload ist not really working here. I created an icmp-rule to ping the wan-interface. OK, so i disabled this without having a schedule and the ping replys and replys and so on….... It is difficult to test the schedule-logic, cron, resettings states and so on if the filter reloading are not completely working without schedules. Even if i delete the rule, the ping replys and replys, i wait after the deletion one hour, the ping replys....New ping-sessions are also established. Hmmm? I don´t know.

                Sorry! Please duplicate!

                2.) Can you implement the extension to "Console-menu"?? It would be very nice.

                3.) a line break also in the configured range would be helpful --> Screenshot
                ;D - it´s finished

                4.) the Description of the "schedule name" is not right, "-;_" kicks me out when i fill this in..
                ;D -it´s finished

                5.) Upps, when i edit a saved schedule and change the name for example from "test123" to "test12345", all rules with the schedule "test123" are not switching to "test12345" but to "none" --    intended Huh
                ;D -it´s finished , cool solution

                6.) The "schedule name" field is very long, so look at the screenshot, maybe a little bit shorter, a field definition would be good.
                ??? Not complete, take a look at the screenshot -- Sorry

                7.) Screenshot ; edit a saved range without saving the changes, edit then the next range, so the first one is down the drain, it would be better, i think, when only one range at a time can be modified.
                ;D -it´s finished

                8.) Another problem i think --> see Screenshot ssh.jpg- I have to created a blocking rule like ssh at the top. Without a rule schedule it works fine. Now i create a time range - today 16:45 - to 17:00 -. The time is 16:20 when i put the schedule to the rule. Saved, but nothing happens... On 16:40 i cannot established a ssh session. The Blocking rule i think is only active betwen the timerange, so the default lan rule is active, but i can´t access. The webgui anti-lockout checkbox is active. The "not" operator are not used in this rule.

                • I can test it out, when the filter reloading and states resetting are OK, sorry

                Please duplicate this behaviour to number 1 and i will retest as soon as possible

                The "knock-out" is delayed :)

                Greetings
                heiko

                button_to_near1.jpg
                button_to_near2.jpg
                button_to_near2.jpg_thumb
                great_logic_thanks.jpg
                great_logic_thanks.jpg_thumb
                icmp_test_with_deactivate_rules.jpg
                icmp_test_with_deactivate_rules.jpg_thumb
                range_description_too_long.jpg
                range_description_too_long.jpg_thumb
                schedules_too_long_buttons.jpg
                schedules_too_long_buttons.jpg_thumb

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  sullrich
                  last edited by

                  #1 Sorry, I do not understand this at all.  You are saying that ICMP is not being blocked even without a schedule?

                  In terms of the description boxes, enter a space.  Its NOT normal for someone to enter sdvjkhsdgkjhsdgkhsdkjdgsh as a description.

                  We'll look into the other nit-picks.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • H
                    heiko
                    last edited by

                    Hello Scott,
                    what is normal? We can finished it, but in my opinion a test is an extreme test.
                    Change it or leave it! Your decision!!!

                    Please test blocking rules without schedules. I´am confused of this.

                    Heiko

                    Sorry!!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      sullrich
                      last edited by

                      I don't understand the problem so it is going to be hard to test.  Can you please explain #1 again.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • H
                        heiko
                        last edited by

                        Scott,
                        it is a very simple test.

                        My first test: I create a rule with icmp path to the wan!
                        2.) i ping- all is OK
                        3.) i disable the rule, and the ping replys
                        4.) i delete the rule, and the ping replys
                        5.) after the delete of the "one" rule, new ping replys and replys

                        So, before i test a rule with a schedule, at first a i test the normal behaviour….

                        Please duplicate!

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • S
                          sullrich
                          last edited by

                          I cannot duplicate this.  The firewall works as it should without schedules, in fact, we didn't modify the PF rules at all so if an item does not have a schedule then nothing has changed on the backend.

                          If you are speaking of a rule having an issue with a schedule please run ipfw show from the shell and show what the rules look like.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • H
                            heiko
                            last edited by

                            I will test it, i´am disappointed

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S
                              sullrich
                              last edited by

                              Why are you disappointed?

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • H
                                heiko
                                last edited by

                                no comment, i will test it

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • S
                                  sullrich
                                  last edited by

                                  I think our language barriers are getting in the way.  Is there someone out there that can help translate?

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • H
                                    heiko
                                    last edited by

                                    Scott,
                                    i think we are finished the project.
                                    Thank you for the the great coding.
                                    heiko

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • S
                                      sullrich
                                      last edited by

                                      I am confused, so everything works okay?

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • H
                                        heiko
                                        last edited by

                                        No, i think it is not working, but you work very well, but i want not a conflict..

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • S
                                          sullrich
                                          last edited by

                                          Nobody is creating a conflict.  I just cannot duplicate the problem..

                                          When I permit or deny ICMP traffic on the WAN interface it stops as it should.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • H
                                            heiko
                                            last edited by

                                            OK, then it is vmware problem, i think

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