Also I am having the following message after added the script in
/usr/local/pf/lib/pf/vlan/custom.pm.

[root@vmpf vlan]# service packetfence status
Global symbol "$node_info" requires explicit package name at
/usr/local/pf/lib/pf/vlan/custom.pm line 196.
Global symbol "$node_info" requires explicit package name at
/usr/local/pf/lib/pf/vlan/custom.pm line 200.


Sorry for sending out so many questions. Please shed me a light on this.
Thanks.


On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:58 PM, forbmsyn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Fabrice,
>
> In the last line of the function getViolationVlan I replaced the following
> statement:
>     return $vlan_number;
>
> with this one :     return 7;
>
> 7 is the vlan number I am testing. I have had this vlan configured on the
> switch and PF as well. I expected the vlan should be changed to 7 after the
> violation happen.
>
> I did see packetfence.log mention that the vlan should be changed from 3
> to 7 but it did not happen.  Below is part of the log:
>
>
> Apr 02 13:31:14 pfcmd.pl(27984) INFO: violation for mac dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f
> vid 1200001 modified (pf::violation::violation_modify)
> Apr 02 13:31:14 pfcmd.pl(27984) INFO: Calling /usr/local/pf/bin/pfcmd
> manage vclose dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f 1200001 (pf::scan::run_scan)
> Apr 02 13:31:14 pfcmd.pl(29354) INFO: violation 1200001 closed for
> dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f (pf::violation::violation_close)
> Apr 02 13:31:14 pfcmd.pl(29354) INFO: re-evaluating access for node
> dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f (manage_vclose called)
> (pf::enforcement::reevaluate_access)
> Apr 02 13:31:14 pfcmd.pl(29354) INFO: dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f is currentlog
> connected at 172.16.123.22 ifIndex 10101 in VLAN 3
> (pf::enforcement::_should_we_reasign_vlan)
> Apr 02 13:31:15 pfcmd.pl(29354) INFO: highest priority violation for
> dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f is 1100001. Target VLAN for violation: isolation (3)
> pf::vlan::custom::getViolationVlan)
> Apr 02 13:31:15 pfcmd.pl(29354) INFO: VLAN reassignment required for
> dc:0e:a1:8a:d4:8f (current VLAN = 3 but should be in VLAN 7)
> (pf::enforcement::_shoud_we_reassign_vlan)
>
>
> Anything else I should look at?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, forbmsyn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Fabrice,
>>
>> Thank you for the tips, but could you please give me more details on how
>> to get this done as I am not good at programming.
>>
>> I have copied the function "sub getViolationVlan {....}" from
>> /usr/local/pf/lib/pf/vlan.pm  and pasted to /usr/local/pf/lib/pf/vlan/
>> custom.pm.
>>
>> Then how do I do the test? Where should I put the script you mentioned
>> below?  Are 666 and 777 in your script the vlan id of isolation vlan?
>> Thanks again for your help.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Fabrice DURAND <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>>  Hello,
>>>
>>> i suppose that you set roles based on the registration source, like AD
>>> -> Employee and Sponsor -> Guest.
>>>
>>> In fact you have to overwrite the vlan id of the isolation vlan, look at
>>> the vlan/custom.pm and add function getViolationVlan (copy and paste
>>> from vlan.pm).
>>>
>>> Now you will be able to write your own test like:
>>>
>>> if ($node_info->{'category'} eq 'Employee') {
>>>     return 666;
>>> elsif ($node_info->{'category'} eq 'Guest') {
>>>     return 777;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Fabrice
>>>
>>> Le 2014-03-27 12:17, forbmsyn a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  I have two types of user: one registered via sponsor, I call it
>>> client; the other one is Active Directory user, I call it employee.
>>>
>>>  After the device being scanned by Nessus and a violation was
>>> triggered, I would like to redirect the device to different vlans depends
>>> on the type of the login user.  For example the client will be switched to
>>> isolation_client vlan, while the employee will be switched to
>>> isolation_employee vlan.  Is there a way to accomplish this?
>>>
>>>  Thanks a lot in advance.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PacketFence-users mailing 
>>> [email protected]https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fabrice [email protected] ::  +1.514.447.4918 (x135) ::  
>>> www.inverse.ca
>>> Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (http://www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence 
>>> (http://packetfence.org)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PacketFence-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users

Reply via email to