They're built; we're waiting on Amazon.
-- Jim
> On Apr 11, 2014, at 22:41, linbloke wrote:
>
>
>> On 11/04/2014 5:23 am, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=1253
>>
>> pfSense release 2.1.2 is now available. pfSense release 2.1.2 follows less
>> than a week after pfSense
On 11/04/2014 5:23 am, Jim Thompson wrote:
https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=1253
pfSense release 2.1.2 is now available. pfSense release 2.1.2 follows less
than a week after pfSense release 2.1.1, and is primarily a security release.
Thanks for the new release. Any sign of updated AWS AMIs?
Reg
hail,
I had the link I followed the steps provided here
http://devwiki.pfsense.org/DevelopersBootStrapAndDevIso, but it won't work for
me again. How can I
find the guide to build it myself ?
I need to put the amd64 kernel option for my net6501.
thanks,
matheus
--
We will call you Cygnus,
Th
This was on the bugtraq list on Wednesday. It would be a
Good Thing if we could block heartbeat queries to
internal devices which may not be patched using something
like this ...
(NOTE there are wordwrap problems in what I've pasted)
= Included Stuff Follows =
From: F
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Martin Fuchs wrote:
> Hi !
>
>
>
> We're running a clustered pfSense (2 Machines x86) and it runs fine.
>
> Yesterday i updated to the 2.1.1 release and since then i contstantly
> receive "Carp cluster member has resumed the state "BACKUP"" mails.
>
You'll get one
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Raimund Sacherer wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> I checked a bit further and at first I deleted all the rrd graphs, because
> I had GW graphs from my old machine (which where i386) and the new one is
> amd64. I do not know if there is a problem with apinger if you have i
Greetings,
I have been noticing that after I build an IPSEC tunnel, even if I disable both
phases and save the config pfSense internal network routing and DNS basically
fails. Nobody on the internal network can get out to the net. All the tunnels
are up and I can login remotely but everyone el
+1 on hearing about an OpenVPN test.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 4/11/2014 9:57 AM, Tim Nelson wrote:
>> Hot on the heels of the OpenSSL debacle, and a fresh new release of
>> pfSense (THANK YOU), I'm curious about the Heartbleed vulnerabilitie's
>> actual surface att
Hi all,
sorry for my "abuse" of the mailing list.
We have the disaster of a broken pfSense upgrade to 2.1.2.
Unfortunally we don't have a proper technican on site
all repair attemps by phone have been not successfull and the (planned)
new pfSense HA-cluster will not reach our location before Tuesda
Hello List,
I checked a bit further and at first I deleted all the rrd graphs, because I
had GW graphs from my old machine (which where i386) and the new one is amd64.
I do not know if there is a problem with apinger if you have i386 rrd files on
an amd64 architecture. It could be that apinger
This project: https://github.com/FiloSottile/Heartbleed (which I have
contributed to) allows you to check any STARTTLS-based service
(POP/IMAP/SMTP/etc).
I am not sure what would need to be changed for OpenVPN.
- Y
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Tim Nelson wrote:
> Greetings-
>
> Hot on the
On 4/11/2014 9:57 AM, Tim Nelson wrote:
> Hot on the heels of the OpenSSL debacle, and a fresh new release of
> pfSense (THANK YOU), I'm curious about the Heartbleed vulnerabilitie's
> actual surface attack area. All of the relevant information, reports,
> and PoC's are pointing at exploit only via
On 04/11/2014 03:57 PM, Tim Nelson wrote:
> Greetings-
>
> Hot on the heels of the OpenSSL debacle, and a fresh new release of
> pfSense (THANK YOU), I'm curious about the Heartbleed vulnerabilitie's
> actual surface attack area. All of the relevant information, reports,
> and PoC's are pointing at
Greetings-
Hot on the heels of the OpenSSL debacle, and a fresh new release of pfSense
(THANK YOU), I'm curious about the Heartbleed vulnerabilitie's actual surface
attack area. All of the relevant information, reports, and PoC's are pointing
at exploit only via an affected HTTPS webserver. Ho
> Just a shot in the wild.
>
> Did you have state killing disabled in the setup?
>
>
> Otherwise more information is needed on this.
> Normally apinger should be way better on 2.1 that it was on 2.0
> because a lot of work went into that.
>
>
Hello Ermal,
I guess you refer to this option:
Hi !
All except one hosts show up as "online".
The other one is not reachable from the firewall, but from the lan...
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] Im Auftrag von Raimund
Sacherer
Gesendet: Freitag, 11. April 2014 09:26
An: pfSense Support and D
On 04/11/2014 10:39 AM, Holger Goetz wrote:
> Thanks for all your efforts!
>
> Hint: maybe some more users could think eg. about the "gold
> subscription" plan to show their appreciation and make the dev guys
> live easier ...
>
> Best,
> Holger
>
yes.
_
Thanks for all your efforts!
Hint: maybe some more users could think eg. about the "gold
subscription" plan to show their appreciation and make the dev guys live
easier ...
Best,
Holger
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfs
- "Martin Fuchs" wrote:
> Same under pfSense 2.1.2
>
>
>
> Any hints ?
>
>
>
> Could it be helpful to play with the base ans skew values ?
>
>
Hi Martin,
could it be related to problems with the arpinger? What are your gateway status
look like?
best
Ray
_
Same under pfSense 2.1.2
Any hints ?
Could it be helpful to play with the base ans skew values ?
Von: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] Im Auftrag von Martin
Fuchs
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. April 2014 16:27
An: list@lists.pfsense.org
Betreff: [pfSense] after upgrade to 2.1.1: ne
20 matches
Mail list logo
