Re: [pfSense] pfsense h/w

- Original Message - > From: "Jim Thompson" > > > On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Adam Thompson > > wrote: > > > > On 14-10-23 04:29 PM, Chris L wrote: > >> I’m not asking what the changes are - I’m asking if these boxes > >> require a special version of pfSense for maximum performance. >

Re: [pfSense] Enumerating NAT Hops - Information Disclosure - TTL++ mangle.

Simplest answer: block outbound ICMP Time Exceeded type responses at the edge. Then your internal layers of routers and hosts can respond to the SYN packets from tcptraceroute, but they'll be dropped and the outside party will only see the edge device. Thanks! -Adrian - Original Messag

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

- Original Message - > From: "Oliver Hansen" > To: "pfSense support and discussion" > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:23:56 AM > Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix < > thinke...@rocketmail.com > wrote: > > On

Re: [pfSense] NATting/re-routing in the same network, is this possible?

- Original Message - > From: "Stefan Baur" > To: "pfSense support and discussion" > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:06:47 AM > Subject: [pfSense] NATting/re-routing in the same network, is this possible? > > Hi List, > > I have multiple sites where several clients (C1...Cn) withi

Re: [pfSense] pfSense help with creating rules

- Original Message - > From: "Jason T. Slack-Moehrle" > > Hi, > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Jason T. Slack-Moehrle > > mailto:slackmoeh...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > I am a little confused at how I would know if they are handing me > > > a /29 or just 5 IP's? > > > > > > range: 75