Id say this is partially right, any misconfigured firewall can be
insecure and allow the php interface to be available, there is currently
no way to turn off/on the web process for administration either. and
currently you cant bind the process to listen on a specific interface.
So a default add
the latest full update i can successfully download from pfsense.com/old is .90a
all version above that i download always gives error something.
i cant open the files after it's download.
i use getright to download.
coz, my connection is quite ugly here.
can never download anything 50meg without
On 11/28/05, Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
system a bit better. the web server is thttpd, but i see lighttpd also
in the cvs tree so they might be migrating to it.
Actually it's mini_httpd (although we do have thttpd in the tree - not
sure why). And yes, we're moving to lighttpd for FastCGI
Make sure you are not accidently choosing an ISO image from the firmware
update page. I did that by mistake once and it came back telling me the
image was corrupt. I then chose the proper image and all was well.
Scott Ullrich wrote:
No the images are not corrupted. Where do you get the
There are still a few other small ones. In paticular with the status
queues screen + fast cgi. When we kill pfctl somehow its signal is
being passed up and killing off the fast-cgi handler.
Woops.
On 11/28/05, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/28/05, Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Newbie Q: security of php on perimeter
firewall
Is there any way we can reboot the mail
server now? It is running at 100% cpu but they are services that should
normally be runningI think we need to shake it out.
Paul
From: Scott Ullrich
Sanjay Arora wrote:
Hi all
Just joined the list. Am mostly using IPcop other Linux flavours for
perimeter firewalling. Needed ISP WAN-link balancing failover, hence
my search for a new option. Also have started experimenting with
freebsd, so choice was limited to either freebsd or linux.
Chris Buechler wrote:
Sanjay Arora wrote:
Hi all
Just joined the list. Am mostly using IPcop other Linux flavours for
perimeter firewalling. Needed ISP WAN-link balancing failover, hence
my search for a new option. Also have started experimenting with
freebsd, so choice was limited to
Bennett wrote:
This answers one of my biggest questions about the fork. I've been
fixated on the package system (though my previous mention of it was
brief), thinking it was a solution for both projects. I had envisioned
moving everything that isn't a core feature into an optional module.
On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick me back into shape. ;)
*kick*
Basically, you can't get to PHP without first being authenticated. At
this point, if you're
On 11/28/05, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick me back into shape. ;)
*kick*
Basically, you can't get to PHP
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 15:43 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 11/28/05, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick me back into
At 07:32 PM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
Will pick up the thread again after evaluating myself.
Hmmm... Psychiatrict problems? :)
On 11/28/05, Sanjay Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I would like to make one request to the project design...users
be given easily configured modular way to remove (i.e. not compile in)
services they do not want on the pfsense box, i.e. the ones that are not
basic to the basic
On 11/28/05, Sanjay Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I would like to make one request to the project design...users
be given easily configured modular way to remove (i.e. not compile in)
services they do not want on the pfsense box, i.e. the ones that are not
basic to the basic
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 20:13 -0600, Bill Marquette wrote:
OK, apparently I can't read English...disregard (unless you choose not
to of course). Upon the 4th read of this, I deciphered the meaning,
which wasn't all that difficult to figure out if I'd read it slower
the first three times. Erg.
Chris Buechler wrote:
Bennett wrote:
Perhaps I should troll the m0n0wall list... :)
go for it. You'd still get me replying to your messages, with the
same stuff mostly. :)
Chris won't be the only one, either. :-)
But it'll never change to be a full blown hard drive install, and
17 matches
Mail list logo
