Re: [pfSense Support] Odd Application Behavior Requirement

I've touched that check box but it doesn't seem to do anything for me. Yes, poor programming in my opinion. Curtis On Jan 17, 2008 4:31 PM, Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 17, 2008 3:57 PM, Curtis LaMasters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I have a client that that has an app

Re: [pfSense Support] Odd Application Behavior Requirement

On Jan 17, 2008 3:57 PM, Curtis LaMasters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a client that that has an application server being installed very > soon that will require them to send and email to a server that is on the > same LAN, however, because of a limitation of the application, they require >

Re: [pfSense Support] Dropped WAN connections

On 1/17/08, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ron Lemon wrote: > > > > Good Afternoon All, > > > > > > I have a satellite internet connection, both in and out, attached to a > > pfSense 1.2RC3 box. > > > > Lately I have been having a connection issue keeping my connection > > stable on

Re: [pfSense Support] Dropped WAN connections

Ron Lemon wrote: Good Afternoon All, I have a satellite internet connection, both in and out, attached to a pfSense 1.2RC3 box. Lately I have been having a connection issue keeping my connection stable on the stat elite for some unknown reason. When the connection gets dropped it usually

Re: [pfSense Support] Pfsense + OpenVPN + Kvpnc with certificates

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, did anyone install pfsense with such configuration? I am using it with the Windows GUI (Mathias one, very good indeed) but I am unable to configure it using KVPNC on Fedora. Could anyone help? TIA, Giuseppe Marullo ---

[pfSense Support] Dropped WAN connections

Good Afternoon All, I have a satellite internet connection, both in and out, attached to a pfSense 1.2RC3 box. Lately I have been having a connection issue keeping my connection stable on the stat elite for some unknown reason. When the connection gets dropped it usually comes back up a short

Re: [pfSense Support] RE: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2-RC4 released!

On 1/17/08, Ngawang Sangye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok - I did the update again and it killed my system, after that it just > didn't quite manage to give an IP address to its LAN Nic. All the Nics are > good intel pro 1000 gt. > > So I reinstalled and reloaded a backup of the settings and its

Re: [pfSense Support] RE: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2-RC4 released!

Ok - I did the update again and it killed my system, after that it just didn't quite manage to give an IP address to its LAN Nic. All the Nics are good intel pro 1000 gt. So I reinstalled and reloaded a backup of the settings and its back to normal. I would avoid the upgrade - there seems to be s

Re: [pfSense Support] Flash UPNP attack

tester wrote: Hello, as subject, being worried I'd like to know if pfSense's UPNP implementation is also affected: I'm sure it most likely is, it's a protocol issue, not an implementation-specific issue. This is why we said for a long time "this is bad, no we won't implement it", but after it

Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Graph kills FireFox 2.0.0.11

Scott Ullrich wrote: On Jan 17, 2008 1:24 AM, Chuck Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: The only additions I can make right now, are that I did try with a priv account with all extensions disabled. The fault occurs in ivplugin.dll. Good ol' Norton Inte

Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic Graph kills FireFox 2.0.0.11

Scott Ullrich wrote: On Jan 17, 2008 1:24 AM, Chuck Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: The only additions I can make right now, are that I did try with a priv account with all extensions disabled. The fault occurs in ivplugin.dll. Good ol' Norton Inte

Re: [pfSense Support] Flash UPNP attack

We use miniupnpd, you might ask this question in their forums http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/forum/ . I don't see that anyone else has asked yet. Let us know what you find. Thanks --Bill On Jan 17, 2008 8:46 AM, tester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > as subject, being worried I'd like to k

Re: [pfSense Support] Problem with Polish provider

Hello, update: The Equipment from the Provider is an Cablemodem, and the Hostnames in the Providers DNS consists the Last part of the ip i.e. 111-11.echostar.pl It is Motorola Cable Modem SB5101 Put DHCP on and link goes up down up down Markus Markus Helfrich schrieb: Hello, no wier

Re: [pfSense Support] Flash UPNP attack

Being that UPnP is generally a security-stupid protocol, if you're paranoid about such things, it would be a good idea to disable UPnP. I don't know if anyone has specifically tested this issue against pfSense, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're affected. Again, UPnP is a dumb protocol.

[pfSense Support] Flash UPNP attack

Hello, as subject, being worried I'd like to know if pfSense's UPNP implementation is also affected: should I disable UPNP? If you still don't know it, read 'Flash UPnP Attack FAQ' at http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/flash-upnp-attack-faq Bye ___

RE: [pfSense Support] RE: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2-RC4 released!

Log in and on the first sceen it should show the version. Or you can go to Status >System -Original Message- From: Ngawang Sangye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:33 PM To: support@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] RE: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2-RC4 rel

Re: [pfSense Support] RE: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2-RC4 released!

Don't know how it happened and it's unlikely that I can replicate it (tried on a VM this AM), but the upgrade on one system resulted in no DNS server listening on UDP/53. It shows tinydns running on TCP/53, but dnsmasq isn't running, and I don't have the tinydns package installed. The VM just has

AW: [pfSense Support] RE: [pfSense-discussion] 1.2-RC4 released!

no way... thats from where i downloaded it as well and it works fine... do you have some kind of services between the client and the server (such as transparent firewalls or else with AV capabilities) ? We once had such a device and every archive was corrupted afterwards... Regards, Martin V

Re: [pfSense Support] Problem with Polish provider

Hello, no wierd messages. What i see is a Message Link down and one second later link up and then the pfsense wall do all the stuff for this event. Bring up all daemons dyndns dhcp and so on. This causes 100% CPU Time. As i know i have standard TCP/IP Port. I configured the WAN Port the same w