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

    Firewall — Rules, moving rule order on LAN bug

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.4 Development Snapshots
    11 Posts 5 Posters 2.4k 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.
    • w0wW
      w0w
      last edited by

      When you try change LAN rules order by drag and drop them over in list, after hitting "save" button all WAN rules appearing on LAN tab and WAN tab consists from two standard blocking rules  RFC 1918 networks  and Block private networks.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        doktornotor Banned
        last edited by

        Oooops, Scheisse…

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          maverick_slo
          last edited by

          Seriously?
          That is really nasty bug if its true…

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • D
            doktornotor Banned
            last edited by

            The only 2.4 box I could test with ATM is a remote one. Obviously, not keen on doing that.  ::) ;D

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • w0wW
              w0w
              last edited by

              Actually it's not moving WAN rules to LAN,WAN rules just disappear, except those two and LAN rules are all duplicated in list. Tested in VM. The first conclusion about moving rules to LAN tab is wrong, I am just blind ;)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                doktornotor Banned
                last edited by

                Well, having them disappear is not exactly much better than having them moved. In fact it's worse I'd say, otherwise you could get those back more easily by changing the interface in the rules.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • N
                  NOYB
                  last edited by

                  Yum.  Not good at all.  This must be a recent development.  Can't believe it would have gone long without being noticed.

                  Firewall Rules
                  LAN
                  Drag and drop a rule to reorder.
                  Save

                  See attached result.

                  2.4.0-BETA (amd64)
                  built on Fri Feb 17 18:23:30 CST 2017
                  FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p7
                  on VirtualBox VM

                  Snap128.jpg
                  Snap128.jpg_thumb

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DerelictD
                    Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                    last edited by

                    I am seeing the same thing here.

                    Thanks, guys: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/7277

                    Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                    A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                    DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                    Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • D
                      doktornotor Banned
                      last edited by

                      @NOYB:

                      Yum.  Not good at all.  This must be a recent development.  Can't believe it would have gone long without being noticed.

                      I believe it's another result of the GET -> POST conversion. :-(

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • N
                        NOYB
                        last edited by

                        @doktornotor:

                        @NOYB:

                        Yum.  Not good at all.  This must be a recent development.  Can't believe it would have gone long without being noticed.

                        I believe it's another result of the GET -> POST conversion. :-(

                        Agree that would make sense to be the most like culprit.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • w0wW
                          w0w
                          last edited by

                          Looks like fixed.

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