* Dan Harnett [2010-02-24 15:29]:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:30:05AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Dan Harnett [2010-02-23 21:19]:
> > >
> > > Probably wrong, but this fixes it.
> >
> > i would not call that wrong.
> >
> > i don't understand how this ever worked and I don't understand w
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:30:05AM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Dan Harnett [2010-02-23 21:19]:
> >
> > Probably wrong, but this fixes it.
>
> i would not call that wrong.
>
> i don't understand how this ever worked and I don't understand what
> broke it. the only commit in that timeframe t
* Dan Harnett [2010-02-23 21:19]:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:28:17PM -0500, Dan Harnett wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > > I don't remember any changes in that area lately so this puzzles me.
> > > do we know when this breakage was introduced, approx
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:28:17PM -0500, Dan Harnett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > I don't remember any changes in that area lately so this puzzles me.
> > do we know when this breakage was introduced, approximately?
>
> I have narrowed it down to be
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 05:24:30PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Dan Harnett [2010-02-23 17:19]:
> > 'pfctl -t tablename -T expire ' is also currently broken.
> > Everything appears to be removed from the table immediately regardless
> > of ''.
> >
> > $ sudo cat /etc/pf.conf
> > table
Hi,
>> I don't remember any changes in that area lately so this puzzles me.
>> do we know when this breakage was introduced, approximately?
>>
>
> I found a couple of boxes with May 2009 kernels where expire
> works as expected. I can't think of anything I have running code
> dated between then a
On 2010-02-23, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Dan Harnett [2010-02-23 17:19]:
>> 'pfctl -t tablename -T expire ' is also currently broken.
>> Everything appears to be removed from the table immediately regardless
>> of ''.
>>
>> $ sudo cat /etc/pf.conf
>> table persist counters
>>
>> $ sudo
* Dan Harnett [2010-02-23 17:19]:
> 'pfctl -t tablename -T expire ' is also currently broken.
> Everything appears to be removed from the table immediately regardless
> of ''.
>
> $ sudo cat /etc/pf.conf
> table persist counters
>
> $ sudo pfctl -vv -t testing -T add 172.16.1.8 172.16.1
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:40:29PM +0100, Michael Lechtermann wrote:
> >>> it's a slightly weird side-effect. a quick glance indicates that the
> >>> tzero timestamp is part of the stats struct and tables don't keep
> >>> stats/counters by default any more. for some time tho. i don't
> >>> remember
* Michael Lechtermann [2010-02-22 22:45]:
> Hi,
>
> >>> it's a slightly weird side-effect. a quick glance indicates that the
> >>> tzero timestamp is part of the stats struct and tables don't keep
> >>> stats/counters by default any more. for some time tho. i don't
> >>> remember any recent chang
Hi,
>>> it's a slightly weird side-effect. a quick glance indicates that the
>>> tzero timestamp is part of the stats struct and tables don't keep
>>> stats/counters by default any more. for some time tho. i don't
>>> remember any recent changes to the table code (as if anybody wanted to
>>> touch
On 2010-02-22, Michael Lechtermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> it's a slightly weird side-effect. a quick glance indicates that the
>> tzero timestamp is part of the stats struct and tables don't keep
>> stats/counters by default any more. for some time tho. i don't
>> remember any recent changes to the tab
Hi,
> it's a slightly weird side-effect. a quick glance indicates that the
> tzero timestamp is part of the stats struct and tables don't keep
> stats/counters by default any more. for some time tho. i don't
> remember any recent changes to the table code (as if anybody wanted to
> touch that mess
* Didier Wiroth [2010-01-23 23:15]:
> On Wednesday 20 January 2010 23:21:35 Michael Lechtermann wrote:
> > Am 20.01.2010 23:15, schrieb frantisek holop:
> > > hmm, on Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:58:32PM +0100, Michael Lechtermann said
> > > that
> > >
> > >> it seems there is a bug in pfctl regarding
On Wednesday 20 January 2010 23:21:35 Michael Lechtermann wrote:
> Am 20.01.2010 23:15, schrieb frantisek holop:
> > hmm, on Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:58:32PM +0100, Michael Lechtermann said
> > that
> >
> >> it seems there is a bug in pfctl regarding the cleared time of a table
> >> entry. The attac
Am 20.01.2010 23:15, schrieb frantisek holop:
> hmm, on Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:58:32PM +0100, Michael Lechtermann said that
>> it seems there is a bug in pfctl regarding the cleared time of a table
>> entry. The attack actually happend this year, but the date shown is
>> constantly changing:
>
>
hmm, on Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:58:32PM +0100, Michael Lechtermann said that
> it seems there is a bug in pfctl regarding the cleared time of a table
> entry. The attack actually happend this year, but the date shown is
> constantly changing:
been like this forever...
-pa-r-- bad-ssh
Addr
Hi,
it seems there is a bug in pfctl regarding the cleared time of a table
entry. The attack actually happend this year, but the date shown is
constantly changing:
# pfctl -t bruteforce -vT show
81.38.199.134
Cleared: Sun Apr 12 18:24:16 2009
88.183.20.179
Cleared: S
18 matches
Mail list logo
