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

    pfBlockerNG-devel feedback

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfBlockerNG
    102 Posts 26 Posters 100.5k 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.
    • JeGrJ
      JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator
      last edited by

      @bbcan177 said in pfBlockerNG-devel feedback:

      I am not a user of CARP, so all feedback appreciated about it.... I can definately add a "VHID" option and will checkout the Alias option also...

      If no one would report other, I'd go with the Alias option if I'd be you ;) Piggy-backing the existing CARP VIP is far easier than creating a separate CARP interface and is also recommended bei the devs itself to reduce network multicast/broadcasting overhead. :)
      Offering the CARP option, too, would cover those missing corner cases, whereas someone doesn't use a VIP on LAN (or other interfaces) for some reason or another. :)

      Don't forget to upvote 👍 those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

      If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        drbilek
        last edited by

        Please I need help with strange behaviour of pfBlockerNG-devel in my network.
        I have logs full of denied connections to UA servers 176.119.4.9:53 UDP and 176.119.4.8:53 UDP.
        After some research I found that pfsense box is asking continuously for PTR 8.4.119.176.in-addr.arpa and PTR 9.4.119.176.in-addr.arpa. According to "lsof -n|grep UDP" on pfsense box process who is generating these reguest is "php_pfb"..:

        php_pfb 47639 root 15u IPv4 0xfffff8004cb469e0 0t0 UDP wan_IP:36014->isp_dns_IP:domain

        I believe this issue is same as mentioned here.. https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/9u4nqm/windows_dns_server_dnsexe_sending_to_known_bad/

        Thanks for any help

        pfBlockerNG-devel 2.2.5_19
        pfsense2.4.4-RELEASE (amd64)

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

          @drbilek

          Increase the pfSense Resolver -> Log Verbosity -> 3 (I can't remember if 2 is enough to log outbound DNS requests). Then review the resolver.log to see which Lan device on your network is making those requests.

          "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/

          D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            drbilek @BBcan177
            last edited by

            @bbcan177

            I´ve already done that.
            This Lan device is internal DNS server. From logs it´s trying to resolve PTR 8.4.119.176.in-addr.arpa and PTR 9.4.119.176.in-addr.arpa queries by contacting 176.119.4.9:53 UDP and 176.119.4.8:53 UDP. But these queries are coming from pfsense box.

            In pfsense dns logs is visible that pfsense is asking not only my internal LAN DNS but ISP DNS server as well.
            And connections from my LAN DNS server are denied by pfBlockerNG
            (to servers 176.119.4.9 and 176.119.4.8 ....this range is blacklisted via feed https://rules.emergingthreats.net/fwrules/emerging-Block-IPs.txt)

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • TekGamerT
              TekGamer
              last edited by TekGamer

              I was alerted of a crash recently and had to manually restart the two pfBlocker processes:
              pfb_dnsbl - pfBlockerNG DNSBL service
              pfb_filter - pfBlockerNG firewall filter service

              I am running pfBlockerNG-devel net 2.2.5_22

              Crash report begins.  Anonymous machine information:
              
              amd64
              11.2-RELEASE-p6
              FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p6 #3 518496b29ae(RELENG_2_4_4): Wed Dec 12 07:41:44 EST 2018     root@buildbot2.nyi.netgate.com:/build/ce-crossbuild-244/obj/amd64/ZfGpH5cd/build/ce-crossbuild-244/pfSense/tmp/FreeBSD-src/sys/pfSense
              
              Crash report details:
              
              PHP Errors:
              [26-Mar-2019 14:29:44 America/Chicago] PHP Fatal error:  Allowed memory size of 536870912 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 4096 bytes) in /usr/local/www/pfblockerng/pfblockerng_log.php on line 192
              [26-Mar-2019 14:29:44 America/Chicago] PHP Fatal error:  Allowed memory size of 536870912 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 12288 bytes) in /etc/inc/notices.inc on line 105
              
              BBcan177B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • BBcan177B
                BBcan177 Moderator @TekGamer
                last edited by

                @TekGamer You attempted to open a large log file in the Log browser and it ran out of memory. Either need to download the file and view in an offline viewer or view that file from the shell.

                "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/

                TekGamerT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • TekGamerT
                  TekGamer @BBcan177
                  last edited by

                  @BBcan177 Ok, in a future release, is it an option for you have the viewer not attempt to load a log file if it is too large, and just display a message to download it to view in an offline viewer? So it doesn't crash?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • RonpfSR
                    RonpfS
                    last edited by RonpfS

                    You can manage the log files size in Log Settings (max lines)
                    Some of the other types of files available to browse are just too big for any browser/viewer.

                    Increasing memory on the system might help, but again there are limits in what you can do in a browser.

                    2.4.5-RELEASE-p1 (amd64)
                    Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q8400 @ 2.66GHz 8GB
                    Backup 0.5_5, Bandwidthd 0.7.4_4, Cron 0.3.7_5, pfBlockerNG-devel 3.0.0_16, Status_Traffic_Totals 2.3.1_1, System_Patches 1.2_5

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • TekGamerT
                      TekGamer
                      last edited by

                      I’ll check my log size, I did leave it at the default. As for RAM, I already have 16 GB, which is the max my Qotom Q575G6 supports.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • RonpfSR
                        RonpfS
                        last edited by

                        You can increase some memory limits in /etc/inc/config.inc, however the changes will be lost on pfsense upgrade.

                        // Set memory limit to 512M on amd64.
                        if ($ARCH == "amd64") {
                        	ini_set("memory_limit", "512M");
                        } else {
                        	ini_set("memory_limit", "128M");
                        }
                        

                        2.4.5-RELEASE-p1 (amd64)
                        Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q8400 @ 2.66GHz 8GB
                        Backup 0.5_5, Bandwidthd 0.7.4_4, Cron 0.3.7_5, pfBlockerNG-devel 3.0.0_16, Status_Traffic_Totals 2.3.1_1, System_Patches 1.2_5

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • D
                          Double K
                          last edited by

                          I installed pfBlockerNG-devel on a fresh 2.4.4 system.
                          For the Firewall 'Auto' Rule Order, how do I get the "Default Order"(original format) into the drop down selection list? I don't want to allow pfB_Pass/Match before all other rules - I just want pfB_Block/Reject same as pfBlocker 2.1.4

                          Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 8.43.19 AM.png

                          Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 8.39.19 AM.png

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

                            @Double-K
                            Those are the default settings now... If none of those Auto rule settings work for your needs, you can always use "Alias Type" Action settings and manually create the firewall rules to suit. Click on the blue infoblock icon for the Action setting for more details.

                            "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/

                            D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • D
                              Double K @BBcan177
                              last edited by

                              @BBcan177 Thanks! Any plan to offer both options (the new default format & the old original format)?

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

                                @Double-K said in pfBlockerNG-devel feedback:

                                @BBcan177 Thanks! Any plan to offer both options (the new default format & the old original format)?

                                Not really... I never win with Auto Rules... This list would be 100000000000 different variations and no one will be happy with it.... So for now... I give up ;^)

                                "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/

                                D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • D
                                  Double K @BBcan177
                                  last edited by

                                  @BBcan177 :-)

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • NollipfSenseN
                                    NollipfSense
                                    last edited by

                                    BBcan177, it's with great pleasure to report that I am extremely grateful and happy with pfBlockerNG-devl...never had an issue except the occasional feed load failure which usually recovered later that day or the next day...really appreciate you hard work, thank you.

                                    pfSense+ 23.09 Lenovo Thinkcentre M93P SFF Quadcore i7 dual Raid-ZFS 128GB-SSD 32GB-RAM PCI-Intel i350-t4 NIC, -Intel QAT 8950.
                                    pfSense+ 23.09 VM-Proxmox, Dell Precision Xeon-W2155 Nvme 500GB-ZFS 128GB-RAM PCIe-Intel i350-t4, Intel QAT-8950, P-cloud.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • L
                                      laser22
                                      last edited by

                                      I am so grateful for your work that I will be a patreon member very shortly.
                                      Other than an occasional curl error and for some reason on routes I don't show anything on the vip address but I do on the host address and have stats.
                                      I am investigating that today.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • E
                                        ex1580
                                        last edited by ex1580

                                        PfBlockerNG has been working well. I only wish it could do wildcards and/or regex in DNSBL like pihole can do (different DNS server, I know). Also, when I block a domain in Opendns it blocks subdomains too. PfBlockerNG does not. That is all I really want to do.

                                        EDITED: I do now realize that I can enable the TLD feature and it will block subdomains. It was just not where I was expecting to find that.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • J
                                          justme2
                                          last edited by

                                          Ran into an interesting issue where a DHCP interface ended up changing IPs and the new IP Address was on a list. While the IP Address being on a list is an issue, it broke other services as the feed stopped traffic (unrelated to the list) that shouldn't have been interrupted.

                                          It would be greatly appreciated if there was a means to categorically exclude each interface - possibly as a choice of: None, IP Address or Network. Something that reveals that an interface IP Address/Network matched in a list and a means to locate the specific list(s) (or pf table) where the IP Address "matched" would be helpful.

                                          FYI - may have missed it, but didn't locate anything that inferred a means to "exclude" an interface's IP Address (or network) - without specifying the IP/Network. This would be critical for interfaces that are DHCP driven. The exclusion of the firewall itself (IP/Network) from any feed would ensure that pfB can remain "first check" ("Default format") before services, without it potentially taking down services. This avoids potentially "unsavory" sources from being able to reach any service(s) in the first place.

                                          Hadn't seen this issue previously, so was caught 'off guard' by the fact that this happened and took a little to determine the source of connections being rejected.

                                          Thanks!

                                          GertjanG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • GertjanG
                                            Gertjan @justme2
                                            last edited by

                                            @justme2 said in pfBlockerNG-devel feedback:

                                            where a DHCP interface ended up changing IPs and the new IP Address was on a list.

                                            Woow. Impressive.
                                            What IP range ? Where ? What entity hands out thee kind of IP's ? And, most important, what list ?

                                            No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                                            Edit : and where are the logs ??

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