No way to download pfsense
-
https-everywhere is running on firefox…
hasn't been a problem in the past, anyways...
-
There's nothing like installing idiotic browser extensions. Have a nice day.
-
Du mich auch… :-p
-
PS: attaching .jpg is beyond the capabilities of this forum, so the error from Texas/NY is "This connection is untrusted" and "invalid security certificate"
BTW, attaching jpg here works fine… perhaps look into removing couple more of your browser "improvements".
-
Germany, ISP German Telekom, time is 15:46 here, no chance to download the files with Opera latest and FF
latest without any extensions!With MS IE11 & IE12 the downloads are starting immediately or instantly.
-
Are you as well trying via HTTPS? Then stop.
-
The certs being used show as valid via every single check I can think to do on them.. They are clearly wild card certs.. this kind of makes that obvious *.pfsense.org
As to using https to mirrors.. That would be up to the mirrors themselves if they support https or not and certs used again would be on them.
As to attaching jpg files there is no issues that I see with doing that, how about not putting in spaces of files names your trying to attach to some system to use.
I have accessed it with ie, firefox, chrome without any issues.
-
Yeah, there's no problem with certs where they are used. When people switch HTTP links to HTTPS on download mirrors or whatever, the certs are no longer valid, because those are another subdomain, would require another set of wildcard certs (waste of money) or redoing the DNS.
-
Yeah, there's no problem with certs where they are used. When people switch HTTP links to HTTPS on download mirrors or whatever, the certs are no longer valid, because those are another subdomain, would require another set of wildcard certs (waste of money) or redoing the DNS.
Exactly. User error, not pfsense error.
-
May I repeat that it hasn't been a problem in the past to download via https. Why is it explicitly forbidden now to use https for downloading?
-
Not forbidden, but consider this:
if your browser can't 'resolve' the certificate it receives from the web server, then …. things start to error.Looking at this error:
files.nyi.pfsense.org uses an invalid security certificate. *The certificate is only valid for the following names: .pfsense.org, pfsense.orgfiles.nyi.pfsense.org is a sub domain of *.pfsense.org - but, somehow, your browser says : it isn't. That's scarry.
In that case: better forget about https with that browser, use your 'plan B' browser. -
It's the latest firefox, both Windows and Linux. There is no plan B.
-
It's the latest firefox, both Windows and Linux. There is no plan B.
That's not a reliable situation.
IF Firefox manages to send over a new version with a huge bug (let's say: certificate checking ;)), you will not be able to 'surf' anymore, neither repair (== upgrade) your Firefox.
On most Windows system, somewhere, IE is still present for the 'in case of' situations. -
I do not upgrade all systems at the same time. So there is always a way back. No, IE is eliminated on my Win systems.
There is no problem with firefox, huh? Might just be somewhat strict with the certificates.
But as usual in this forum, everything is fine with pfsense, always the user is just a bloddy id*ot… Got it!
btw: Why exactly is https not allowed for downloads?
-
btw: Why exactly is https not allowed for downloads?
If you actually read this thread, already been answered. Instead of relying on broken-by-design addons (if the author wasn't an idiot, he'd try some prefetch and only force HTTPS if no certificate errors were encountered). *.pfsense.org certs will NOT work for *.subdomain.pfsense.org; it hasn't worked in any browser for years, it hasn't worked in Firefox since 2012. This behavior conforms to relevant standards, no bug there. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495339
-
Again, I use eff.org https-everywhere for YEARS. Also I use only Firefox for YEARS. Never had any issues with downloading pfsense.
AGAIN: Question: WHAT has changed, why is it not possible to download pfsense with this setup?
Please, stick to that question and don't try to tell me it's Firefox or me who is the problem…
-
But as usual in this forum, everything is fine with pfsense, always the user is just a bloddy id*ot… Got it!
Noop.
Proof it to yourself : visit any https site like: www.paypal.com
You saw the green bar ? Your browser is working, certificats are ok, pfSense is working.
Btw: 'certificats' are just files, being put in TCP streams. pfSense as a NAT/Firewall does know nothing about 'certificats'.This is a "browser can't match certificate" issue. Maybe it cached a certificate, can't contact the certificate issuer (temporalily DNS issue).
Anyway, pfSense image files are stored on "public download servers", they probably even don't use pfSense :)
Another proof/test : try downloading, bypassing the pfSense on your LAN (using the same ISP).
It works ? doesn't work ?edit: when browsing to https://files.nyi.pfsense.org:443 I receive the same error with my FF browser - Doktornotor's https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495339 becomes very clear !
-
May I cite from the the 2009 bug (after dusting of a little):
"This bug is invalid.
It complains that a cert with the wildcard pattern *.glodns.net
does not match the DNS name swiftspirit.co.za.plesk01.glodns.net
but that failure to match is REQUIRED by the relevant Internet standards.
It was the old behavior, where it DID match, that was a bug. "So, what has changed since May 2015, as I did my last download without any problems on different systems (Win, Linux) with Firefox and https-everywhere plugin?
PLEASE, no FUD, stick to that question! Why is it not possible to download pfsense via a https connection?
-
Why is it not possible to download pfsense via a https connection?
Are you actually reading, dude? Already told you twice. Are you going to pay for those 6 other wildcard certs yourself? There's no problem with downloading anything from mirrors. The only problem here is your idiotic browser addon making totally invalida assumptions that if there's something listening on port 443, it sure is intended and configured to serve the same content.
-
Do you actually read, Sir? I told you that there was no problem with this setup until May 2015, so what has changed since May 2015?
Simple question.
