Temporary allowed connections
-
@kiokoman said in Temporary allowed connections:
sadly 120 sec it's the minimum to digest bullshit sorry but this time i can't stop laughing
Are you saying it's normally incoming or outgoing ?
You only needed 10 seconds to share yours
-
@johnpoz said in Temporary allowed connections:
@chpalmer very true... I have never seen it used in any enterprise we have ever supported..
In a mom and pop shop, you click the eazy rule... And then 15 min later or 1 hour later you delete the rule... How freaking hard is that?? I mean really?
Suture yourself.
Some other software firewall (opensense) WILL include it and then they'll have just one more reason not to use pfsense.
Juuuuuuust sayin.Not everyone who uses pfsense in necessarily is an environment that pure enterprise. I got no dog in this fight. Just pointing something out. You guys are Sooooooo sensitive to suggestions. lol
-
Yeah they will be leaving in droves flocking to that feature that zero people need ;)
Still waiting for the screenshot where you do this in watchguard, which you said it does... I placed my bet on the rep that says it doesn't..
You are more than welcome to code that up since its so easy, and submit the PR...
-
@johnpoz said in Temporary allowed connections:
Yeah they will be leaving in droves flocking to that feature that zero people need ;)
Still waiting for the screenshot where you do this in watchguard, which you said it does... I placed my bet on the rep that says it doesn't..
when KOM's rep gets back and says it does...be man enough to admit it ok?
-
@HansSolo said in Temporary allowed connections:
If not, that's very disappointing.
I believe it started when you scolded the product like a young child..
-
If they do allow it - it sure not in their create policy documentation that is for sure ;) Why should we have to wait for his rep? You are sure they do it - so you don't have access to a watchguard that you can take a screenshot showing it?
-
@chpalmer said in Temporary allowed connections:
@HansSolo said in Temporary allowed connections:
If not, that's very disappointing.
I believe it started when you scolded the product like a young child..
Seriously?
"Scolded the product" ? LMAO.
That's what consumers do mate !!
Imagine if every company folded because they got "scolded" HAHAHAHAHA !!!!You guys need a tougher hide.
-
@HansSolo said in Temporary allowed connections:
Suture yourself
/r/boneappletea
I must admit that I am impressed with how quickly you can manage to piss off senior members here. Frankly, nobody really cares if Watchguard has that feature or not since it's moot. pfSense doesn't have it, so if that feature is critical to you then I guess you will be using a Watchguard and have no more need of pfSense.
-
@johnpoz said in Temporary allowed connections:
If they do allow it - it sure not in their create policy documentation that is for sure ;) Why should we have to wait for his rep? You are sure they do it - so you don't have access to a watchguard that you can take a screenshot showing it?
I do and I can....I'm lazy....waiting for KOM's rep to say I was right
-
I just got sent this. Rep said "Its done under schedules" Looks familiar. You guys can run through these pages if you want. Im not.
https://www.watchguard.com/help/docs/help-center/en-US/Content/en-US/Fireware/policies/operating_sched_set_c.html
https://www.watchguard.com/help/docs/help-center/en-US/Content/en-US/Fireware/policies/policy_properties_about_c.html
Triggering snowflakes one by one..
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box. -
I don't think any one is opposed to adding such a feature - if there was actual call for it.. Never seen such a request before that I recall... So its not like the users of pfsense are beating the drums demanding this pretty much useless feature..
If you want it - then code it... Or your more than welcome to switch over to something that does it.. Like this watchguard.. Yeah last time I checked their pricing was right in line with pfsense being FREE ;)
edit: Well clearly your not from what he posted, you do it via schedules - just like you do on pfsense, just like you can do on juniper SRX, etc. etc.
-
@HansSolo Why do you keep saying that? It's not my rep and I have no knowledge of Watchguards.
-
@johnpoz said in Temporary allowed connections:
I don't think any one is opposed to adding such a feature - if there was actual call for it.. Never seen such a request before that I recall... So its not like the users of pfsense are beating the drums demanding this pretty much useless feature..
If you want it - then code it... Or your more than welcome to switch over to something that does it.. Like this watchguard.. Yeah last time I checked their pricing was right in line with pfsense being FREE ;)
Honestly????
YOU GUYS SHOULD THANK ME FOR THE SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISM.You're right...most sheeple won't say a word.
Is technical support free?
pfsense is pretty darn good. I've said that a NUMBER of times. For the price, HELL YEAH!!!! But products THRIVE (or die) on consumer criticism and feedback and the response they make to it.
A wise development board NEVER tells a consumer with a suggestion or complaint to F - off.
-
This post is deleted! -
@chpalmer said in Temporary allowed connections:
Just called my Watchguard rep and he thinks that your incorrect. He is going to check though.
Dude! LOL!!
-
The converse, of course, is that a wise user doesn't come into the forums and immediately start negging the product. If you would have just asked your question without implying that pfSense sucks because it doesn't do this thing that every other firewall in the world does (but not really), and it's soooooo disappointing, you would have avoided all this heat.
BTW part 2, no "story" changed. It was chpalmer that said he talked to his rep so I'm not sure what you're going on about. Look at the damned thread.
Actually, I'm done. Done here and done with you.
-
@chpalmer said in Temporary allowed connections:
I just got sent this. Rep said "Its done under schedules" Looks familiar. You guys can run through these pages if you want. Im not.
Oh yea- and his response.
-
The only reason we have a Watchguard "rep" is because of small number of sites where we inherited the customer from an over zealous salesman. They are almost all replaced now. Just one more site. :)
https://redmine.pfsense.org/
-
@HansSolo Well the lack of interest when you posted this the first time already speaks for itself: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/143176/feature-request-ability-to-allow-for-limited-time
And for the future:
As @kiokoman already pointed out feature requests need to go on redmine, there you will see whether the developers see it as valid or not. Adding a pull request with an example implementation might speed it up.If you post something on a discussion forum expect it to be discussed, and ridiculed if it is ridiculous, as most people have (surprise) different opinions and many will not agree with you. Acting childish when people disagree and trying to play the "But <insert random competing product name> has it and is better than you" card will just disqualify you further in that case.
-
@Grimson said in Temporary allowed connections:
@HansSolo Well the lack of interest when you posted this the first time already speaks for itself: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/143176/feature-request-ability-to-allow-for-limited-time
And for the future:
As @kiokoman already pointed out feature requests need to go on redmine, there you will see whether the developers see it as valid or not. Adding a pull request with an example implementation might speed it up.If you post something on a discussion forum expect it to be discussed, and ridiculed if it is ridiculous, as most people have (surprise) different opinions and many will not agree with you. Acting childish when people disagree and trying to play the "But <insert random competing product name> has it and is better than you" card will just disqualify you further in that case.
Yes, Good to see you recognized that a few of the regulars here were acting "childish". Good for you.
As far as the "no one interested" comment.....
There are two replies to that thread. So right off the bat you are mistaken.
I had forgotten about that post. My bad for not remembering everything.As far as the "has it better than you" thingy......
If you want to twist it into that go right ahead. I asked if it was possible then took the time to post an illustration.
Others then said "No other firewall I've ever seen has that"......So I kindly pointed out which did.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about. I would suggest you carefully read the thread again, just to get things straight.
Kind Regards
