On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 01:28:10PM +0900, Ryan McBride wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out, it was an oversight in the recent changes
> to pf_test_rule().
>
> I recommend specifying explicitly the correct protocols if you're
> wanting to to match by user/group/os fingerprints.
>
> block r
Thanks for pointing this out, it was an oversight in the recent changes
to pf_test_rule().
I recommend specifying explicitly the correct protocols if you're
wanting to to match by user/group/os fingerprints.
block return out log proto { tcp, udp } all user = 1002
If you'd like, you can a
On 2011-07-12, Jiri B wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with latest snapshot (Jul 11 2011) I see this strange behavior
> which I haven't seen before upgrade (ping caught by strange pf
> rule).
You have important information which you didn't include: the date
when it last worked.
Ideally read through the commi
Hello,
with latest snapshot (Jul 11 2011) I see this strange behavior
which I haven't seen before upgrade (ping caught by strange pf
rule).
$ id ;netstat -rnf inet | grep default
uid=1000(jirib) gid=10(users) groups=10(users), 0(wheel), 5(operator)
default192.168.1.1UGS
4 matches
Mail list logo
