Re: Packet Filter router i368 vs 64bit

On 11/28/2014 06:01 AM, Brad Smith wrote: > On 11/27/14 23:50, jungle Boogie wrote: >> Hi, >> On 27 November 2014 at 20:38, wrote: >>> >>> you can just use old hardware for these purposes. >>> >>> from the man who literally wrote the book on pf (from pf tutorial via >>> http://home.nuug.no/~peter

Re: Packet Filter router i368 vs 64bit

On 11/28/2014 06:21 PM, trondd wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Edgar Pettijohn > wrote: > >> This is something I've been interested in trying, but I would want it as a >> wireless access point as well and not sure what cards are supported and >> work well. Does anyone know of any good

Re: 5.5 bsd.rd fails to boot on alix

Hello, I have an Alix 2d13 booting fine OpenBSD 5.5. If there is no error messages, maybe you just lost connection with serial line. Did you set "set tty com0" at the boot prompt? I have this from my root tftp: $ cat ./etc/boot.conf set tty com0 boot bsd.rd The default alix work at 38400, but

Re: openssh

Le 03/07/2014 15:17, Dennis Davis a écrit : > On Thu, 3 Jul 2014, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: > >> From: Peter N. M. Hansteen >> To: misc@openbsd.org >> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:41:12 >> Subject: Re: openssh >> >> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:32:42AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: >>> * Mihai Popescu

Re: openssh

Le 03/07/2014 22:49, Chris Cappuccio a écrit : > Peter N. M. Hansteen [pe...@bsdly.net] wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:32:42AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: >>> * Mihai Popescu [2014-07-02 17:05]: Better buy a hardisk, copy your data and mail it abroad. Seriously. >>> A truck full of har

Minor outdated link in faq

Hello, I found a link in the FAQ about upgrading to -stable branch pointing on the upgrade guide 5.3 -> 5.4. I think this should point on 5.4 -> 5.5. Here is a patch. --- stable.html.old Mon Jul 14 00:30:30 2014 +++ stable.html Mon Jul 14 00:31:08 2014 @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ Do not attempt t

Memory checker

Hello, I saw the valgrind port in GSOC 2014, there is someone working on it actually? Is there an alternative to valgrind in OpenBSD to check for memory leak and invalid read/write? If no, do you have some clues to implement a little basic layer to hook malloc / free and track block size? Thanks

Re: Memory checker

Le 31/07/2014 14:45, Stuart Henderson a écrit : > On 2014-07-31, Blaise Hizded wrote: >> If no, do you have some clues to implement a little basic layer to hook >> malloc / free and track block size? > malloc has some useful code hidden behind MALLOC_STATS - see > http:/

Re: pf rdr-to and access from internal network

On 10/28/2014 07:57 PM, Julian Smith wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:40:52 -0400 > trondd wrote: > >> Are you telnetting to the external IP of the server from the internal >> client? > Yes. Actually i've tried using the external IP and the internal IP. > Both have the same result - telnet says 'te

Nginx security patch build fail

Hello, I just installed a fresh OpenBSD 5.4 release and I want to apply all the errata security patch. Everything worked well except the 004 patch for Nginx. I apply the patch without problem, but when I try to recompile: # rm -rf /usr/obj/*

Re: Nginx security patch build fail

On 04/24/14 17:38, Pablo Méndez Hernández wrote: > Hi Blaise, > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Blaise Hizded wrote: >> Hello, >> I just installed a fresh OpenBSD 5.4 release and I want to apply all the >> errata security patch. >> Everything worked well exc

Re: Nginx security patch build fail

On 04/25/14 09:29, Pablo Méndez Hernández wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Blaise Hizded wrote: >> On 04/24/14 17:38, Pablo Méndez Hernández wrote: >>> Hi Blaise, >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Blaise Hizded wrote: >>>> Hello, &

Re: pf multiple match rules

On 05/06/2014 12:54 PM, Marko Cupać wrote: > Hi, > > with the following two match lines: > > match out on $ext_if from 192.168.1.0/24 to any nat-to X.X.X.X > match out on $ext_if from 192.168.1.55 to any nat-to Y.Y.Y.Y > > and the following pass line: > > pass in on $int_if inet proto tcp from 192.

Re: pf multiple match rules

On 05/07/2014 12:17 PM, Marko Cupać wrote: > Thank you for reply. > > I have been trying some trial and error tests, and I came to similar > conclusion, but I would like to understand the design idea behind match > rule. > > Who wins, the first or the last matching rule? Or do they all stick > toge

Re: pf multiple match rules

On 05/07/2014 12:41 PM, Marko Cupać wrote: > On Wed, 07 May 2014 12:23:12 +0200 > Blaise Hizded wrote: > >> As Henning Brauer said, the rewrite are applied immediately. So the >> first match rule will rewrite IP from the packet and the second match >> will be evalua