This has nothing to do with pfSense misbehaving I'm sure. However, it makes
good reading. And who knows, maybe there is a sympathetic soul out there who
has shed sweat over this ahead of me.
A couple of package installs rendered pf 2.0 on an embedded Alix unusable.
Removing the packages in guy
Senior year in what program?
Yudhvir
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Hamdan Khalifah wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am a senior year I have project about Pfsense, and I am not sure which
> should I focus on Routing, Firewall, VPN, or other stuff.
>
> May you advise me which field of Pfsens
Kickstarter had/has a campaign by iguardian to create a snort appliance. It
looks like something you are trying to do. Instead of pf, it is based on
openwrt. Check it out.
Yudhvir
> On Sep 29, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Ivo Tonev wrote:
>
> I don't like the bridge approach because if you have many v
You don't mention if you had fd working on the earlier version of pf.
You must have checked the config file for password and dir settings. The
upgrade might have changed it because this might be a fresh install of fd.
You say it is not listening, that sounds like there is an attempt at
i'd use "find" and there is also a pseudo config file in a bin directory
which points to the actual fd executable that t find. You can edit the top
section of that to reflect your install.
I'll take a look on my system and get back to you.
Yudhvir ਯੁਧੱਵੀਰ408 915 9709
-- Ori
I second nixing the thread. pfSense does not benefit from this.
Mehma
On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:39, Thinker Rix wrote:
>>
>> Again: The real threat by my comprehension is not some "guy in the internet"
>> trying to place malicious code int
That block is on a TCP packet, not UDP. Also, is there something on the othersid
Yudhvir
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>
>> On 14-07-17 12:32 PM, NetSys Pro wrote:
>> Here's the output:
>>
>> Jul 17 21:27:50 fw2 pf: 10.6.2.10 > 192.168.6.106: ICMP echo request, id
>> 4354
Sorry fat fingered the reply. Is there something on the other end of the Ping
to answer?
Yudhvir
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Mehmasarja Darks wrote:
>
> That block is on a TCP packet, not UDP. Also, is there something on the
> othersid
> Yudhvir
>
>> On Jul 17
