Captive portal's session timeout

lir · Jun 11, 2006, 5:05 AM

But the timeout in the captive portal is a global timeout for all users, and there's a special check-box for grabbing
the session-timeout attribute returned from the radius- if its there then it means it is supposed to work.

buraglio · Jun 11, 2006, 3:18 PM

Ah, that wasn't clear to me from your first post. I have not tried the radius provided session timeout. If I get some time maybe I can test it against my lab setup this week to see if I get the same results.

lir · Jun 11, 2006, 4:11 PM

Thank you.
I very much appriciate it, it's an important feature for me which I need Pfsense to fully support.

buraglio · Jun 16, 2006, 1:50 AM

@lir:

Thank you.
I very much appriciate it, it's an important feature for me which I need Pfsense to fully support.

I've been really busy this week and have yet to have a chance to try it out.

nb

lir · Jun 16, 2006, 4:01 PM

Ok cool
I'm waiting for your reply on it.

billm · Jun 17, 2006, 4:48 AM

@lir:

But the timeout in the captive portal is a global timeout for all users, and there's a special check-box for grabbing
the session-timeout attribute returned from the radius- if its there then it means it is supposed to work.

Actually, I think that might be part of the radius code that hasn't been backported from HEAD when we last merged in the m0n0 CP code. This may be a feature that's not supposed to work and needs to be stripped from 1.0. I'll try and confirm that shortly.

–Bill

billm · Jun 17, 2006, 4:53 AM

Scott can probably add more, but the more I look at the code, the more I'm convinced that this feature slipped in during a merge of the CP code which requires the newer radius.inc and PECL RADIUS that's in HEAD.

–Bill

sullrich · Jun 17, 2006, 6:52 AM

Could be. I don't know. Will check it out.

lir · Jun 18, 2006, 5:31 AM

Cool.
Let me know what you find out…

sullrich · Jun 18, 2006, 5:37 AM

We havent changed RELENG_1's captive portal code in quite a while. That is not it.

lir · Jun 18, 2006, 6:39 PM

Sorry but I'm a bit confused.
Is the 'session-timeout' attribute supported or not?

sullrich · Jun 18, 2006, 6:40 PM

Session timeout is working fine for me here. But I am in no way using radius.

lir · Jun 18, 2006, 8:38 PM

Right.
When not using radius, it's working fine.

Question is - what happens when using radius?
There's a special box to use Session-Timeout attribute received from the radius so why is that not functioning?

Thanks.

lir · Jun 26, 2006, 3:32 PM

@sullrich:

Could be. I don't know. Will check it out.

Any new regarding this issue?

Thanks.

sullrich · Jun 26, 2006, 3:55 PM

No.

buraglio · Jun 27, 2006, 4:00 PM

@sullrich:

No.

I've been too busy to test this yet, sorry. I have a lot of travel in the next few weeks so it may be a little while.

nb

hoba · Jun 27, 2006, 4:27 PM

You might want to test this with m0n0wall and bring this to attention at the m0n0 list if it's the same there. pfSense's captive portal is a nearly exact copy of the m0n0 CP though it's not the version used in the latest m0n0wall.

namezero · Jun 29, 2006, 7:57 AM

Looks like m0n0wall's beta 1.23b1 has improvement on that issue:

hanges in captive portal (jdegraeve)

* fixed a bug in the way we handle authentication mechanisms (potentially allowing double logins and faulty locking)
* add support for different MAC address formatting styles
* add support for per-user bandwidth limitation (using well-known WISPr RADIUS attributes)
http://m0n0.ch/wall/beta.php

So if you're really stuck, you might want to take a look at m0n0wall for the mean time.

sullrich · Jun 29, 2006, 3:34 PM

@namezero:

Looks like m0n0wall's beta 1.23b1 has improvement on that issue:

hanges in captive portal (jdegraeve)

* fixed a bug in the way we handle authentication mechanisms (potentially allowing double logins and faulty locking)
* add support for different MAC address formatting styles
* add support for per-user bandwidth limitation (using well-known WISPr RADIUS attributes)
http://m0n0.ch/wall/beta.php

So if you're really stuck, you might want to take a look at m0n0wall for the mean time.

We have already backported this code to HEAD but it will not appear in 1.0. I agree with namezero, if this is such a big issue then please run m0n0wall.