Volker wrote:
On 12/23/-58 20:59, Eric wrote:
in this case, pf logging looks like this:
Why is the first host producing more detailed logs? why isnt pf showing
the port that was blocked or anything else like it does in the first
host? Is there a way to make the ng0 interface log more or is thi
On 12/23/-58 20:59, Eric wrote:
> in this case, pf logging looks like this:
>
> #
> tcpdump -ei pflog0
> #
> tcpdump: WARNING: pflog0: no IPv4 address assigned
> #
> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
> #
> listening on pflog0, link-type PFLOG (OpenBSD p
>
> Why is the first host producing more detailed logs? why isnt pf showing
> the port that was blocked or anything else like it does in the first
> host? Is there a way to make the ng0 interface log more or is this due
> to the netgraph hooks into pf?
At a rough guess, you've not got IPV6 compil
Max Laier wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2007 14:35, Eric wrote:
Why is the first host producing more detailed logs? why isnt pf showing
the port that was blocked or anything else like it does in the first
host? Is there a way to make the ng0 interface log more or is this due
to the netgraph hooks i
On Monday 19 March 2007 14:35, Eric wrote:
> hello all,
>
> I had a question about how pf is logging things. Here is the setup.
>
> Full pf logs can be viewed here: http://mikestammer.pastebin.ca/401536
>
> I have a machine set up like this:
>
> Internet-->Router-->bge0
>
> and it produces pf logs
hello all,
I had a question about how pf is logging things. Here is the setup.
Full pf logs can be viewed here: http://mikestammer.pastebin.ca/401536
I have a machine set up like this:
Internet-->Router-->bge0
and it produces pf logs that look like this:
#
tcpdump -n -e -ttt -i pflog0
#
tcpdu
