Max Laier wrote:
Okay ... here is the story: First off, "synproxy state" is *NOT* broken! But
you need to be careful how you use it. If you - like the OP - intend to use
it to protect a service running on the same box as your pf, you must make sure
to "set skip on lo0" or it will not work
* Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-04 18:28:33 +0100]:
> On Thursday 04 December 2008 16:47:13 Max Laier wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 December 2008 16:24:23 Vladimir Ermakov wrote:
> > > problem is fixed in OpenBSD 4.4
> > > http://www.openbsd.org/plus44.html
> >
> > The bug this note refers to
On Thursday 04 December 2008 16:47:13 Max Laier wrote:
> On Thursday 04 December 2008 16:24:23 Vladimir Ermakov wrote:
> > problem is fixed in OpenBSD 4.4
> > http://www.openbsd.org/plus44.html
>
> The bug this note refers to was introduced after OpenBSD 4.1 (our last
> import) and should not be pr
On Thursday 04 December 2008 16:24:23 Vladimir Ermakov wrote:
> problem is fixed in OpenBSD 4.4
> http://www.openbsd.org/plus44.html
The bug this note refers to was introduced after OpenBSD 4.1 (our last import)
and should not be present in the FreeBSD code. I'll double check in a bit to
make s
problem is fixed in OpenBSD 4.4
http://www.openbsd.org/plus44.html
/Vladimir Ermakov
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Jesper Wallin wrote:
think this is because you also do filtering on the loopback interface and therefore
block the initial handshake. Try with "set skip on lo0". :-)
Regards,
Jesper
Thank you, but I did not use blocking rules.
/Vladimir Ermakov
crossmessage
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2008-November/004881.html
hello
I tried to rule with `synproxy state`
uname
FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #0: Wed Oct 29 12:47:36
UTC 2008 (amd64 & i386 arch)
the `synproxy state` is not working (web-browser