<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Suggestion for base system user managment.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I was wondering if anyone has considered putting the freeradius package into the base system.<br />
Pros:</p>
<ul>
<li>It would allow <strong>ALL</strong> user management to be done from one page, rather than have separate pages for each subsystem.</li>
<li>PPTP, OPENVPN, PPPOE, L2TP, WIRELESS 802.11, and (possibly) openssh and IPSEC could be managed. (it might be best to keep openssh and console access off radius system)</li>
<li>There is a radius php module that could be used to check if an admin had access rights to a page.</li>
<li>accounting and usage data could be logged (including page access by admins)</li>
<li>would be easy to add an external auth source (LDAP/Active directory/MYSQL)</li>
<li>would allow per user bandwidth shaping in base config</li>
<li>you could still proxy requests to a different radius server, and/or supply a external radius server.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">Cons:</p>
<ul>
<li>memory usage and disk writes/persistence on embedded platform.</li>
<li>a lot of work to implement php/radius web page access restrictions (need not be implemented)</li>
<li>if the radius subsystem breaks, everything stops</li>
<li>you still would need a web config user (admin?) to be able to auth without radius (see above line)</li>
<li>you need to run another service (freeradius) on the firewall. (a lot off people will be against this)</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">I'm just thinking out aloud here, most of these options can still be implemented with freeradius as a package, or even with an external radius server.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/15112/suggestion-for-base-system-user-managment</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 23:17:05 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/15112.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 12:00:23 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Suggestion for base system user managment. on Mon, 11 May 2009 06:49:21 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Even with the new users and groups features of 2.0, for some of the other features I am working on, I will need to have a second users/groups page for radius, which I was trying to avoid.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/196919</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/196919</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[sadara]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 06:49:21 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Suggestion for base system user managment. on Fri, 08 May 2009 14:22:55 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Many of your suggestions are already in pfSense 2.0 and the framework is there for many more of them.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/196833</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/196833</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[[[global:guest]]]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 14:22:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Suggestion for base system user managment. on Wed, 06 May 2009 15:57:56 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">You might take a look at how things have changed in the 2.0 code base. There have been a lot of changes to user management and such.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/196654</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/196654</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jimp]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 15:57:56 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>