ntrating on getting the web traffic to work first.
I've changed rule #1 as you can see below but pf returns a syntax error.
# redirect www trafic to proxy
rdr in on $int_if inet proto tcp from !$proxy to any port
$proxy_services -> $proxy $proxyport tag rdr_proxy
My variables are:
not
sure about it's being right at all..
may be someone else can give both of us a tip on its being right or wrong??
:)
regards,
takCoder
Best Regards,
t.a.k
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:30 PM, s m wrote:
> dear takcoder
>
> maybe you are right but now it is not important for me.
On 30 Nov 2012, at 08:30, Leslie Jensen wrote:
>
>
> Damien Fleuriot skrev 2012-11-29 00:28:
>> On 27 November 2012 22:01, Leslie Jensen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, that depends on what you want to do.
>>
>> If you want FTP traffic to go to ftp-proxy running on the firewall,
>> then re
Damien Fleuriot skrev 2012-11-29 00:28:
On 27 November 2012 22:01, Leslie Jensen wrote:
Well, that depends on what you want to do.
If you want FTP traffic to go to ftp-proxy running on the firewall,
then redirect to 8021.
If you want it to go to your squid proxy, then send it to port 80
On 27 November 2012 22:01, Leslie Jensen wrote:
>
>
> Volodymyr Kostyrko skrev 2012-11-26 21:50:
>>
>> 26.11.2012 20:40, Leslie Jensen:
>>
>>> Rules from pf.conf
>>>
>>>
>>> # macros
>>> ext_if="xl0"
>>> int_if="bge0"
>>>
>>> tcp_services="{ 22, 993, 59
Volodymyr Kostyrko skrev 2012-11-26 21:50:
26.11.2012 20:40, Leslie Jensen:
Rules from pf.conf
# macros
ext_if="xl0"
int_if="bge0"
tcp_services="{ 22, 993, 5910:5917 }"
tcp_priv_services="{ 389, 443 }"
proxy_services = "{ 21, 80 }"
icmp_types="{ e
Doug Sampson skrev 2012-11-27 18:34:
[...]
Rules from pf.conf
# macros
ext_if="xl0"
int_if="bge0"
tcp_services="{ 22, 993, 5910:5917 }"
tcp_priv_services="{ 389, 443 }"
proxy_services = "{ 21, 80 }"
icmp_types="{ echoreq unreach squench timex }"
On Nov 27, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Doug Sampson wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Rules from pf.conf
>>
>>
>> # macros
>> ext_if="xl0"
>> int_if="bge0"
>>
>> tcp_services="{ 22, 993, 5910:5917 }"
>> tcp_priv_services="{ 389, 443 }"
>> proxy_services = "{ 21, 80 }"
>>
[...]
> Rules from pf.conf
>
>
> # macros
> ext_if="xl0"
> int_if="bge0"
>
> tcp_services="{ 22, 993, 5910:5917 }"
> tcp_priv_services="{ 389, 443 }"
> proxy_services = "{ 21, 80 }"
> icmp_types="{ echoreq unreach squench timex }"
> internal_net = "17
Volodymyr Kostyrko skrev 2012-11-26 21:50:
rdr pass proto tcp from any to any port ftp -> 127.0.0.1 port 8021
# redirect www trafic to proxy
rdr on $int_if inet proto tcp from $internal_net to any port
$proxy_services -> $proxy port 8080
I could be wrong here but I think you have a loop. Y
26.11.2012 20:40, Leslie Jensen:
Rules from pf.conf
# macros
ext_if="xl0"
int_if="bge0"
tcp_services="{ 22, 993, 5910:5917 }"
tcp_priv_services="{ 389, 443 }"
proxy_services = "{ 21, 80 }"
icmp_types="{ echoreq unreach squench timex }"
internal_net =
se provide relevant parts of pf.conf and full log output,
not just the first line?
Just to clarify. I'm running pf and squid on the same machine.
Yes I've also split the listening ports.
http_port 172.18.0.1:8080 intercept
http_port 127.0.0.1:8080
Output from cache.log:
2012/11/24 14
24.11.2012 17:39, Leslie Jensen:
I've upgraded squid from 3.1 to 3.2. Starting squid 3.2 with the same
configuration file now gives me errors in cache.log when one tries to
access any site, and of course no access!
2012/11/24 16:24:56 kid1| WARNING: Forwarding loop detected for:
Reverting back
On 23/11/2012 15:58, Fleuriot Damien wrote:
On Nov 23, 2012, at 3:46 PM, David Demelier wrote:
Hello,
I would like to disable the network traffic for specific IPs, for the
moment I just add to my pf.conf a rule that will block everything for a
specified table like this :
table
[...] other
I've upgraded squid from 3.1 to 3.2. Starting squid 3.2 with the same
configuration file now gives me errors in cache.log when one tries to
access any site, and of course no access!
2012/11/24 16:24:56 kid1| WARNING: Forwarding loop detected for:
Reverting back to 3.1 works.
I know there ar
On Nov 23, 2012, at 3:46 PM, David Demelier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to disable the network traffic for specific IPs, for the
> moment I just add to my pf.conf a rule that will block everything for a
> specified table like this :
>
> table
>
> [...] others rules [...]
>
> block from
Hello,
I would like to disable the network traffic for specific IPs, for the
moment I just add to my pf.conf a rule that will block everything for a
specified table like this :
table
[...] others rules [...]
block from
Then I just need to add my IP using pfctl, it will works, no packet can b
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:40:16AM +, Anders N. wrote:
A> Hi. I've got a server running pf that has been displaying some odd (at least
to me) behavior.
A>
A> I use the "synproxy state"[1] option quite a few times in my config without
any ill effects that I've
Hi. I've got a server running pf that has been displaying some odd (at least to
me) behavior.
I use the "synproxy state"[1] option quite a few times in my config without any
ill effects that I've noticed until now. I realized it was on every open port
except for ssh, so
dear takcoder
maybe you are right but now it is not important for me. i want to get
packets by pf in order to set packet's TOS bit (packets which comes from
IPFW).
have you any suggestion?
thanks for your attention
sam
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM, takCoder wrote:
> hey sam,
>
:53 PM, s m wrote:
> hello guys
>
> i have a problem with getting packets which are diverted to a specific port
> by PF. i mean i diverted my packets to a specific port by IPFW and want to
> get these packets by PF to change them.
> i used "ipfw add 1000 divert 8000 all
hello guys
i have a problem with getting packets which are diverted to a specific port
by PF. i mean i diverted my packets to a specific port by IPFW and want to
get these packets by PF to change them.
i used "ipfw add 1000 divert 8000 all form any to any" command to divert my
packets.
hello every body
i want to mark some of my packets (by tag, mark, divert or anything else)
in IPFW and recognize these packets in PF in the same system.
please let me know if it is possible and how i can do that.
i have freebsd 8.2. if it is impossible in freebsd 8.2, what about freebsd
9? can
Hello,
If I need to recompile pfctl and snmp_pf, would I run 'make clean',
'make', and 'make install' in /usr/src/usr.sbin/bsnmpd/modules/snmp_pf
and /usr/src/sbin/pfctl? Is either of the directories incorrect
or some other combination of make calls required there?
Oh, forgot to mention. T
Hello,
If I need to recompile pfctl and snmp_pf, would I run 'make clean',
'make', and 'make install' in /usr/src/usr.sbin/bsnmpd/modules/snmp_pf
and /usr/src/sbin/pfctl? Is either of the directories incorrect
or some other combination of make calls required there?
Thank you,
Darrel
___
[HEADS UP] merging projects/pf into head
Some good news:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2012-September/006740.html
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Hi folks,
I've little questions about RDR using Packet Filter (PF), I used IPF
(IPFILTER) before and success with this scenario.
extif = outside interface
intif = internal interface
public_ip = 202.xxx.xxx.xxx
client_create = 192.168.1.1, port = 6112
client_join = 192.168.1.2
for ou
17.08.2012, 20:54, "Darren Baginski" :
> Hi list!
>
> Could you please point me how can I set DSCP/TOS bits for outgoing packets
> using pf ?
> I would like to mark all packets going to the specific port marked with DSCP
> CS3.
>
Hi list!
Could you please point me how can I set DSCP/TOS bits for outgoing packets
using pf ?
I would like to mark all packets going to the specific port marked with DSCP
CS3.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
Hi.
I'm running a small VPN for ~10 office users. Upon upgrading the machine from
8.3 to 9.0 yesterday, it became
impossible for users to connect to the VPN. I've tried everything I can think
of to track down the problem and it
seems (although I may be mistaken) to be something to
I have another problem . >_<
Sometimes , I cannot connect to server ( in trust zone ) from untrust.
Even I turn off the firewall, the situation still come up.
But, when the state appears, I ping some ip from the server ( in trust
) to a host ( in untrust ).
Suddenly, I connect to the server
ule ( block out on bridge0 ).
So, I change some configuration.
1. bind freebsd ip ( 10.1.1.1 ) on em0
2. change some pf rules ( please see below )
pf.conf
my_net=10.1.1.0/24
serv1="10.1.1.101"
client1="10.1.6.73"
set skip lo0
set skip bridge0
block in all
blo
I have some trouble with pf on freebsd bridge.
Network topology:
( untrust ) -- { em0 , bridge0 , em1 } -- ( trust )
Bridge Network: 10.1.1.0/24
bridge0 IP: 10.1.1.1 ( freebsd's ip )
default gw: 10.1.1.254 ( in untrust area )
server: 10.1.1.101 ~ 200 ( in trust area )
pf.conf on fr
There's also web available manuals for probably every release of OpenBSD here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=pf.conf&manpath=OpenBSD+4.5
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.fre
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:39:38AM +0200, Hasse Hansson wrote:
> To solve the ftp pre 4.7 part, you can start reading here
> http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/long-firewall.html#FTPPROBLEM
>
> /Hasse
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.o
To solve the ftp pre 4.7 part, you can start reading here
http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/long-firewall.html#FTPPROBLEM
/Hasse
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] På vegne af Fbsd8
Sendt: den 16 april 2012 04:31
Fbsd8 wrote:
Running 9.0 as a gateway host with pf firewall enabled.
FTP is launched by inetd.
Both active and passive ftp works from lan pc's to the host ftp.
The lan ftp session can be initiated from the host or any lan pc and
things work because there are no rules on the lan interface e
Running 9.0 as a gateway host with pf firewall enabled.
FTP is launched by inetd.
Both active and passive ftp works from lan pc's to the host ftp.
The lan ftp session can be initiated from the host or any lan pc and
things work because there are no rules on the lan interface except
single
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:34 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
In the pf log I see the rule number of the rule used to create the log
file entry. pfctl -sr command does not list the rule number of each rule
it lists.
Hi,
Try pfctl -sr -vv
---Mike
Thanks the -vv printed the rule number
On 4/11/2012 8:34 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
> In the pf log I see the rule number of the rule used to create the log
> file entry. pfctl -sr command does not list the rule number of each rule
> it lists.
Hi,
Try pfctl -sr -vv
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519
In the pf log I see the rule number of the rule used to create the log
file entry. pfctl -sr command does not list the rule number of each rule
it lists.
So my question is how do I relate the rule number shown in the log
listing back to the text rule file rules
8.x, 9.x BSD servers though
from Windows 7. If I switch to an XP client on same network (192.168.0.0/16) it
works. If I shutoff pf on the 5.3 server Win 7 clients can connect. So it
must be pf, but I don't see how pf would be affected by a windows OS
version. pf.conf follows
-Matt
**/etc/pf.c
man 4 enc
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Edward Carrel wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>
>> Thinking -pf@ or -net@ would be a better place to discuss this, more chances
>> of getting an answer.
>
> I was wondering about that. I'll send
On Jan 3, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> Thinking -pf@ or -net@ would be a better place to discuss this, more chances
> of getting an answer.
I was wondering about that. I'll send my question to -net@ to start. Thanks.
> Out of curiosity why not use a gif interface
Thinking -pf@ or -net@ would be a better place to discuss this, more chances of
getting an answer.
Out of curiosity why not use a gif interface ?
I had that working just fine with racoon and was able to actually firewall
traffic on it with PF, iirc
On 01/03/12 16:17, Ed Carrel wrote:
Hi freebsd-questions,
I am running into a roadblock getting PF to filter traffic on a Netgraph
interface representing an L2TP/IPSec connection. I have done some narrowing
down of the problem, but was hoping to get some advice on figuring out
where to go
Hi freebsd-questions,
I am running into a roadblock getting PF to filter traffic on a Netgraph
interface representing an L2TP/IPSec connection. I have done some narrowing
down of the problem, but was hoping to get some advice on figuring out
where to go digging next, or things to try.
Also
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:52:15 -0500
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:15 AM, RW
> wrote:
> > It's about latency, realtime has priority over non-realtime.
>
> I sort of understand this, but I can't figure out how that would apply
> to my example:
>
> altq on $wan hfsc bandwidth 25
APseudoUtopia wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm setting up pf with altq support in my kernel on freebsd 9.0-Stable
> (soon to switch to the -RELEASE once it's available).
> The system is a quad-core Xeon E31220, running amd64.
> I've done a bit of googling and found various
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:15 AM, RW wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:51:39 -0500
> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
>> I've read everything I could find on the topic of configuring hfsc
>> altq in pf (4.5, FreeBSD 9), but I still have no clear idea of how it
>> is actu
Hello,
I'm setting up pf with altq support in my kernel on freebsd 9.0-Stable
(soon to switch to the -RELEASE once it's available).
The system is a quad-core Xeon E31220, running amd64.
I've done a bit of googling and found various results. I know the
freebsd handbook says ALTQ_NO
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:51:39 -0500
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> I've read everything I could find on the topic of configuring hfsc
> altq in pf (4.5, FreeBSD 9), but I still have no clear idea of how it
> is actually implemented. I even started looking through the source
> code, but
I've read everything I could find on the topic of configuring hfsc
altq in pf (4.5, FreeBSD 9), but I still have no clear idea of how it
is actually implemented. I even started looking through the source
code, but that might take a while. My main questions are:
1. Difference between
--- Original message ---
From: "Damien Fleuriot"
To: "Mark Moellering"
Date: 30 November 2011, 21:11:19
Subject: Re: pf rdr (redirect) syntax solved
> On 30 Nov 2011, at 17:49, Mark Moellering wrote:
>
> > My apologies for posting an answer without
On 30 Nov 2011, at 17:49, Mark Moellering wrote:
> My apologies for posting an answer without a question but this is something I
> want searchable in the future.
> To use redirection ( rdr ) in pf, you MUST specify an ip address or interface.
> For example, if you want to fo
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Mark Moellering wrote:
> My apologies for posting an answer without a question but this is something
> I want searchable in the future.
> To use redirection ( rdr ) in pf, you MUST specify an ip address or
> interface.
> For example, if you want to
My apologies for posting an answer without a question but this is
something I want searchable in the future.
To use redirection ( rdr ) in pf, you MUST specify an ip address or
interface.
For example, if you want to force external traffic coming in on port 80
to port 443 and write this;
rdr
g in on an interface
> >>> > > other than that which holds the route back to the packet's source
> >>> > > address.
> >> >
> >> > Excuse me, I do not see how this is relevant to my question (allowing
> >> > traffic to be
Le Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:10:53 +0700,
Victor Sudakov a écrit :
> The problem is, there could be several routed networks behind the
> inside interfaces. Not all inside networks are directly connected, and
> the :network macro works only for directly connected interfaces,
> right?
Rigth, this is why
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
> >>
> >>>I have a configuration with 2 inside interfaces, 1 outside and 1 dmz
> >>>interface. The traffic should be able to flow
> >>>
> >>>1) from inside1 to any (and back)
> >>>2) from inside2 to any (and back)
> >>>3) from dmz to outside only (and back).
> >>>
> >>>I ne
g in on an interface
> >>> > > other than that which holds the route back to the packet's source
> >>> > > address.
> >> >
> >> > Excuse me, I do not see how this is relevant to my question (allowing
> >> > traffic to be
ource
> > > address.
> >
> > Excuse me, I do not see how this is relevant to my question (allowing
> > traffic to be initiated from a more secure interface to a less secure
> > interface and not vice versa).
>
> Sorry, you can't do this with pf, ipf or ipfw (
On 10/9/2011 10:39 AM, Victor Sudakov wrote:
Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
I have a configuration with 2 inside interfaces, 1 outside and 1 dmz
interface. The traffic should be able to flow
1) from inside1 to any (and back)
2) from inside2 to any (and back)
3) from dmz to outside only (and back).
> > forwarding (URPF) check, i.e. packets coming in on an interface
>>> > > other than that which holds the route back to the packet's source
>>> > > address.
>> >
>> > Excuse me, I do not see how this is relevant to my question (al
gt; address.
>
> Excuse me, I do not see how this is relevant to my question (allowing
> traffic to be initiated from a more secure interface to a less secure
> interface and not vice versa).
Sorry, you can't do this with pf, ipf or ipfw (the 3 firewalls in
FreeBSD). There is no con
Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
>
> > I have a configuration with 2 inside interfaces, 1 outside and 1 dmz
> > interface. The traffic should be able to flow
> >
> > 1) from inside1 to any (and back)
> > 2) from inside2 to any (and back)
> > 3) from dmz to outside only (and back).
> >
> > I need no det
Le Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:15:54 +0700,
Victor Sudakov a écrit :
> I have a configuration with 2 inside interfaces, 1 outside and 1 dmz
> interface. The traffic should be able to flow
>
> 1) from inside1 to any (and back)
> 2) from inside2 to any (and back)
> 3) from dmz to outside only (and back).
>
Colleagues,
I have a configuration with 2 inside interfaces, 1 outside and 1 dmz
interface. The traffic should be able to flow
1) from inside1 to any (and back)
2) from inside2 to any (and back)
3) from dmz to outside only (and back).
I need no details, just a general hint how to setup such secu
On 21/09/2011 09:17, krad wrote:
> If its been syncd to openbsd 4.5 version of pf, its still quite a way behind
> openbsd's version in the latest release as they are not on 4.9 with 5.0
> imminent. Looking at the docs there were quite a lot of changes when openbsd
> was b
On 21 September 2011 09:05, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 08:34, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > On 21/09/2011 07:34, Modulok wrote:
> >> Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD
> version is
> >> using? Currently I'm doing this:
&
On 21/09/2011 08:34, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 07:34, Modulok wrote:
>> Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD version
>> is
>> using? Currently I'm doing this:
>>
>> grep -iE '\bpf\b' /usr/src/UPDATING
On 21/09/2011 07:34, Modulok wrote:
> Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD version is
> using? Currently I'm doing this:
>
> grep -iE '\bpf\b' /usr/src/UPDATING
>
> Just wondering if I'm missing something. I didn'
List,
Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD version is
using? Currently I'm doing this:
grep -iE '\bpf\b' /usr/src/UPDATING
Just wondering if I'm missing something. I didn't see any '--ve
Hi folks, I have the following pf.conf on FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE *and* 8.2-RELEASE
===
set block-policy return
set skip on lo
int_if=bge1
ext_if=bge0
dup_if=dc0
# NAT rule
nat on $ext_if from $int_if:network to any -> ($ext_if) sticky-address
#
# Windows RDP redirectio
Hi all,
I am trying to use pf nat rules with pool support on FreeBsd 8.0, working
together with ipfw as the main firewall. According to the natting concepts i
faced in manuals and docs, nat concept is to map the source address to the
natted address when sending the packets from that source and
On Tue, July 26, 2011 9:01 am, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:44 AM, Yavuz MaÅlak wrote:
>> I use pf on freebsd as packet filter.
>>
>> I have a wireless area. The users get to the internet using automatic ip
>> from the dhcp server.
>> I wish to d
On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:44 AM, Yavuz Maşlak wrote:
> I use pf on freebsd as packet filter.
>
> I have a wireless area. The users get to the internet using automatic ip
> from the dhcp server.
> I wish to deny to assign a static ip address by manual.
You can't prevent someo
2011/7/26 Matthew Seaman
> On 26/07/2011 11:44, Yavuz Maşlak wrote:
> > I use pf on freebsd as packet filter.
> >
> > I have a wireless area. The users get to the internet using automatic ip
> > from the dhcp server.
> > I wish to deny to assign a static ip add
On 26/07/2011 11:44, Yavuz Maşlak wrote:
> I use pf on freebsd as packet filter.
>
> I have a wireless area. The users get to the internet using automatic ip
> from the dhcp server.
> I wish to deny to assign a static ip address by manual.
>
> How can I do that with pf or
On 07/26/2011 12:44 PM, Yavuz Maşlak wrote:
> Hello
>
> I use pf on freebsd as packet filter.
>
> I have a wireless area. The users get to the internet using automatic ip
> from the dhcp server.
> I wish to deny to assign a static ip address by manual.
>
> How can I
Hello
I use pf on freebsd as packet filter.
I have a wireless area. The users get to the internet using automatic ip
from the dhcp server.
I wish to deny to assign a static ip address by manual.
How can I do that with pf or ipfw or another thing?
thanks
On Wednesday 13 July 2011 10:26:59 Mario Lobo wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I have the following scenario.
>
> FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #0: Thu May 19 19:53:59 BRT 2011
> i386
>
> I want to be able to connect to any of the 2 external IPs this machine has.
>
> ### pf.conf excerpt
>
> ext_if1 =
Hi;
I have the following scenario.
FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #0: Thu May 19 19:53:59 BRT 2011
i386
I want to be able to connect to any of the 2 external IPs this machine has.
### pf.conf excerpt
ext_if1 = sis0 (1M link. default gateway)
ext_if2 = rl0 (2M link)
aln_if = dc0
eb 09, 2011 at 09:08:53AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/09/11 01:18, Daniel Bye wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:20:56AM +1000, Da Roc
, Da Rock wrote:
A very quick question.
PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on the internal
network (dmz). One server binat in the pf.conf, the rest redirected.
Possible? Or would it die in the hole?
I guess you're concerned about performanc
9, 2011 at 12:20:56AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A very quick question.
>>>>>
>>>>> PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on the internal
>>>>> network (dmz). One server
On 02/09/11 21:16, Daniel Bye wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 09:08:53AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
On 02/09/11 01:18, Daniel Bye wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:20:56AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
A very quick question.
PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on the
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 09:08:53AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On 02/09/11 01:18, Daniel Bye wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:20:56AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> >
> >>A very quick question.
> >>
> >>PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on
On 02/09/11 01:18, Daniel Bye wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:20:56AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
A very quick question.
PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on the internal
network (dmz). One server binat in the pf.conf, the rest redirected.
Possible? Or would it die in the
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:20:56AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> A very quick question.
>
> PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on the internal
> network (dmz). One server binat in the pf.conf, the rest redirected.
>
> Possible? Or would it die in the hole?
I gues
A very quick question.
PF firewall. One static public IP. About 6 servers on the internal
network (dmz). One server binat in the pf.conf, the rest redirected.
Possible? Or would it die in the hole?
TIA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
he internal interface?
2) why block all if I'm allowing everything out on the external interface?
3) why not pass everything on the internal interface and then filter
on the external?
The shortest answer is because I happen to like that starting point
and it serves as a syntactical reminder
) why block all if I'm allowing everything out on the external interface?
3) why not pass everything on the internal interface and then filter
on the external?
The shortest answer is because I happen to like that starting point
and it serves as a syntactical reminder if I deploy without a pf
r
On 01/31/11 20:30, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:39:18 +1000,
Da Rock a écrit :
I spent some time playing with pf and pf.conf, and followed the
directions in the handbook. It redirected me to the openbsd site for
pf.conf, and recommended it as the most comprehensive
Le Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:39:18 +1000,
Da Rock a écrit :
> I spent some time playing with pf and pf.conf, and followed the
> directions in the handbook. It redirected me to the openbsd site for
> pf.conf, and recommended it as the most comprehensive documentation
> for pf.
>
>
suitability, how else does one learn if not through practice?
On 1/29/11, Da Rock wrote:
I spent some time playing with pf and pf.conf, and followed the
directions in the handbook. It redirected me to the openbsd site for
pf.conf, and recommended it as the most comprehensive documentation for pf
I spent some time playing with pf and pf.conf, and followed the
directions in the handbook. It redirected me to the openbsd site for
pf.conf, and recommended it as the most comprehensive documentation for pf.
Firstly, I didn't find that. I had to translate the instructions into
the cu
On 1/19/11, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> Modulok writes:
>
>> This book comes in two editions. The first was published in December
>> 2007, the second, November, 2010. Does anyone have this? And if so
>> would I be correct to get the first edition instead? I know Fr
Modulok writes:
> This book comes in two editions. The first was published in December
> 2007, the second, November, 2010. Does anyone have this? And if so
> would I be correct to get the first edition instead? I know FreeBSD's
> pf lags being openBSD's, so I'm not sur
>
> Because Peter made mention on misc@ that the second edition was geared
> towards OpenBSD 4.8 and the version of pf that's in FreeBSD is quite a
> bit older.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=128938065524891&w=2
>
Hi
In the second edition there are als
1 - 100 of 1121 matches
Mail list logo
