Guess I struck a nerve.
You have no clue what my stance has been on the growing surveillance state for
the past decades, so I think it is you who should curtail his speech.
Yup. They called us paranoid and tinfoil hat and conspiracy theorists.
Surprisingly, it continues to this day.
On Oct 9,
@Chris L
i am not responsible, if you didn't get it.
if one comes to me with worries about an completely free open source system
by using an Closed Source SHIT.
<<< this is ridoculous
He should first consider his Closed Source Shit.
Now i find also his nick misleading, he should name NON-Thinker
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Michael Schuh wrote:
> ridiculous
Head, meet sand.
Then again, consider the country of origin. They have a history of not
recognizing naked tyranny and evil until it's far too late.
They will be in good company with all the apologists for the current American
sur
ridiculous
vvv
From: Thinker Rix
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
= = = http://michael-schuh.net/ = = =
Projektmanage
On Oct 9, 2013 7:05 PM, "Jens Kühnel" wrote:
> "NanoBSD", "update 2.1" and "embedded", but could not find anything.
> I also checked the forum, but I could only find file system full when
I too came up dry when researching this issue. I ended up grabbing a spare
system and restoring my running c
Hi,
thanks for the fast help.
Am 10.10.13 01:57, schrieb Walter Parker:
> There is an issue with doing NanoBSD (the embedded image) upgrades from
> 2.0.X to 2.1 that can cause /var to fill up. The fallout effect of this
> causes the interfaces to not come up. If you search the mailing list
> arch
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Goofy79 wrote:
> We have exact the same Problem.
> Timeouts in our SSH connections.
>
> I tried it over the DSL Modem to a Server in the iNet and
> over a DMZ interface to an Server in the DMZ.
> to both Linux Servers timeouts with the SSH.
>
First guess, asymmetri
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Roy Hocknull wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am having trouble setting up an IPSEC transport mode connection. My
> traffic is still going over the public internet and not down the encrypted
> link. Does anyone have any guidance on how to set an IPSEC transport VPN up?
>
There
On 10/09/2013 15:20, Joe Landman wrote:
> I just worked out setting up new filters for the recent S/N destroying, high
> tin-foil-hat content, on gmail. Since people pleading for this to go away
> hasn't worked, technological measures to restore S/N for my inbox on this
> list have been engaged
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> Dear pfsense-team,
>
> today I posted the following on your blog at http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
>
>
>
>
> “Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
>
> October 9th, 2013 at 7:55
*What part about taking this conversation somewhere else is so hard to
understand?*
*Really people, that is enough.*
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Chris L wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Joe Landman
> wrote:
>
> > I just worked out setting up new filters for the recent S/N destroying,
There is an issue with doing NanoBSD (the embedded image) upgrades from
2.0.X to 2.1 that can cause /var to fill up. The fallout effect of this
causes the interfaces to not come up. If you search the mailing list
archives you will see that it has hit other people and that workarounds are
required t
On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Joe Landman wrote:
> I just worked out setting up new filters for the recent S/N destroying, high
> tin-foil-hat content, on gmail. Since people pleading for this to go away
> hasn't worked, technological measures to restore S/N for my inbox on this
> list have be
Hi,
My questions:
Has anyone successfully updated a PFSense on an Alix board with 10 or
more interfaces (2 phy, 8 VLANs, 1 WAN).
Or is running a PFSense 2.1 setup like this successfully?
Reason:
I just upgrade my home firewall from PFSense 2.0.3 to 2.1 (Nano 2G
Serial) running on a Alix board.
I just worked out setting up new filters for the recent S/N destroying,
high tin-foil-hat content, on gmail. Since people pleading for this to
go away hasn't worked, technological measures to restore S/N for my
inbox on this list have been engaged.
Please folks, take the tin foil hat discussi
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:05:22 +0300
Thinker Rix wrote:
> Well, actually I started this thread with a pretty frank,
> straight-forward and very simple question.
That's right and they were justified.
BTW, you pushed to the corner the (un)famous American hubris (Obama: US
is exceptional.), that's
To take a break from all the NSA talk...
I'm having some trouble routing traffic over an openvpn tunnel between two
pfsense firewalls. Asterisk server on one end, a couple of different phones
on the other side.
It was working fine when we had monowall on both ends. (W/ipsec tunnel)
Since changing
Third
Please pardon brevity and typos ... Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Jason Whitt wrote:
I second this motion
*From:* list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [
mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org ] *On
Behalf Of *Yehuda Katz
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 3:30 PM
*To:*
I third.
Motion passes!
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Jason Whitt wrote:
> I second this motion
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:
> list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] *On Behalf Of *Yehuda Katz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 3:30 PM
> *
I second this motion
From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org]
On Behalf Of Yehuda Katz
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 3:30 PM
To: pfSense support and discussion
Subject: [pfSense] [MOTION TO END THREAD] NSA: Is pfSense infiltrated by
"big brother" NS
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
>>
> But: Interpreting your message, I guess you are participating at this
> mailing list with a mail reader that just pours all incoming mail into one
> folder - which is not "the p
On 2013-10-09 23:43, Pim van Stam wrote:
All,
Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
This endless discussion would be reason for me to unsubscribe and that's not
the goal of the list i guess.
Regards, Pim
Hi Pim,
first of all: Generally - sorry for disturbing you.
B
On 2013-10-09 21:42, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
We all know that the governments currently force on a daily base one company
after the other to comply to their New World
Order-Orwellian-global-surveillance phantasies and make them compromise their
sof
Sorry. I'll stop.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Pim van Stam wrote:
> All,
>
> Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
> This endless discussion would be reason for me to unsubscribe and that's
> not the goal of the list i guess.
>
> Regards, Pim
>
>
> On 9 okt. 2013, a
But, your initial question was not "What level of security and integrity is
provided by pfSense?" or "How do judge the safety and security of pfSense?"
Your question was "Has pfSense been compromised by Big Brother?"
In the context of your Bank question it reads more like "Have you been
robbed y
All,
Can this flame be put to an end or continued via private mail?
This endless discussion would be reason for me to unsubscribe and that's not
the goal of the list i guess.
Regards, Pim
On 9 okt. 2013, at 22:26, Thinker Rix wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> On 2013-10-09 21:53, Walter Parker wrote:
Is ideas on how to secure yourself and your network the sort of thing
you're looking for? A plan or a sense of direction, something like that?
Because you've been focusing on things that do achieve these ends. How
can the pfSense community help you solve your pfSense related problem, or
was it j
Hi Walter,
On 2013-10-09 21:53, Walter Parker wrote:
To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question
reads a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many
people would object to the question at the start because it implies
that the people being asked the quest
Also, per the founder's statements, this was not the first request. He had
"helped" the government with requests for information about other users in
the past...
See the latest Wired/Ars Tech write ups for what was different this time.
Walter
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:16 PM, David Ross wrote:
On 10/9/13 11:56 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:
1. Recently they forced the small encrypted-email-service "Lavabit" to
comply with them (hand out their SSL-masterkeys & install a "black-box"
at their premises). Lavabit did not agree - and they shut him down.
Actually "they" didn't "shut him down". Per
On 2013-10-09 22:11, Ian Bowers wrote:
You got your answer of "no" a while back. But you're still talking.
What are you going to do with the answer now that you have it?
What's YOUR plan?
-Ian
- Well, actually it was not s long ago that I got a clear answer
- Commonly I talk as much a
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:53:24PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Also, the source of git would also reveal a problem when examined. To get
> around that one starts hypothesizing the sort of globe-spanning conspiracy
> against which one might as well give up ("well, maybe all my compilers (not
>
You got your answer of "no" a while back. But you're still talking. What
are you going to do with the answer now that you have it? What's YOUR plan?
-Ian
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> On 2013-10-09 20:16, Gé Weijers wrote:
>
>> I think it's unlikely that ESF was even a
On 2013-10-09 20:16, Gé Weijers wrote:
I think it's unlikely that ESF was even asked to cooperate, but I
don't believe a denial is all that useful under the circumstances, and
asking for it again and again is obnoxious.
Having thought about it again and again, I would like to feedback to you
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:17:25PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.
>
> The situation did not change with the Snowden revelations. Anyone following
> along has known what was going on for at least the last decade.
The differ
To answer your question about throwing the first stone. Your question reads
a bit like the "Are you a criminal/commie?" questions. Many people would
object to the question at the start because it implies that the people
being asked the question has done something wrong. Watching the reactions
to po
On 2013-10-09 19:42, Adam Thompson wrote:
Argh. Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you)
would immediately be committing a federal crime.
Considering the consequences, no-one in their right mind would ever
confirm that they had been approached or received a NSL.
Well, som
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> We all know that the governments currently force on a daily base one company
> after the other to comply to their New World
> Order-Orwellian-global-surveillance phantasies and make them compromise their
> software or service. So I find it absol
On 2013-10-09 20:18, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
Hello Jim!
Thank you for your answer.
On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
No, the NSA hasn’t approached us about pfSense, or adding a “back door”, or
anything similar. Nor has anyone else.
Do you
On 2013-10-09 19:49, Christian Borchert wrote:
Linus Torvalds was asked the same question in a Q&A session about linux. He
said 'no' while nodding his head up and down.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Exactly. Frightening, isn't it?
Awkwardly the audience started laughing about that...
Rega
On 2013-10-09 20:22, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
Hello Jim!
On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in
stroking their own ego.
This is already the second time that you insult m
On 2013-10-09 20:16, Gé Weijers wrote:
Some people in this discussion assume that the principals of ESF could
not be forced to lie by the US government, under threat of lawsuits,
financial ruin, incarceration and not seeing their children grow up.
Gee, quite a frightening regime. Someone shoul
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> By my comprehension, everyone who says that this is a silly question or that
> it is some unimportant thought no one should further bother thinking about in
> detail, is either confused, or trying to conceal something.
Or has better things to d
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> On 2013-10-09 20:04, Walter Parker wrote:
>> About that made in the USA thing, the NSA has deals with overseas companies
>> as well...
>>
>> Plus, the GCHQ and several other foreign spy agency's have done similar
>> things, so if you starting a
On 2013-10-09 17:20, Thinker Rix wrote:
Dear pfsense-team,
I want to ask if you have been approached by any US government
officials, such as NSA, FBI, etc. and been asked/ forced to include
any backdoors, spyware, loggers, etc. into pfsense and if you did so.
Hello all!
Thank you for all yo
On 2013-10-09 20:04, Walter Parker wrote:
About that made in the USA thing, the NSA has deals with overseas
companies as well...
Plus, the GCHQ and several other foreign spy agency's have done
similar things, so if you starting asking, you discover that the major
governments are trying to do
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:13 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> Hello Jim!
>
> On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in
>> stroking their own ego.
>
> This is already the second time that you insult me indirectly.
It’s amusing
Hi Adam,
On 2013-10-09 19:42, Adam Thompson wrote:
Which makes asking the question quite irrelevant.
I do not think so.
Greetings
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On Oct 9, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> Hello Jim!
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> No, the NSA hasn’t approached us about pfSense, or adding a “back door”, or
>> anything similar. Nor has anyone else.
>
> Do you work for Electric Sheep
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:50:53PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in
>> stroking their own ego.
>
> Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adap
Some people in this discussion assume that the principals of ESF could not
be forced to lie by the US government, under threat of lawsuits, financial
ruin, incarceration and not seeing their children grow up. I find this
assumption awfully naive.
I think it's unlikely that ESF was even asked to co
Hello Jim!
On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the
question in stroking their own ego.
This is already the second time that you insult me indirectly. May I ask
again if you are an staff member of Electric Sheep Fencing LLC?
R
>> I also understand your point though, since the software is OSS, it should
>> be fairly easy to check for backdoors :)
>
> Yes, you *could* check. But does anybody? Check the *entire* code and
> get the big picture?
Realistically speaking, that wouldn't be enough anyways.
What is the percentage
About that made in the USA thing, the NSA has deals with overseas companies
as well...
Plus, the GCHQ and several other foreign spy agency's have done similar
things, so if you starting asking, you discover that the major governments
are trying to do this and have succeed more often than we would
Hello Jim!
Thank you for your answer.
On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
No, the NSA hasn't approached us about pfSense, or adding a "back
door", or anything similar. Nor has anyone else.
Do you work for Electric Sheep Fencing LLC, i.e. is this the "official"
answer of the company to
Hi Jim,
thank you for your quick reply!
On 2013-10-09 18:59, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 10/9/2013 11:20 AM, Paul Kunicki wrote:
I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
merit and deserves response alth
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:46 PM, David Burgess wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> So asking the question is stupid(*), because a lie is indistinguishable from
> the truth.
>
>
> I disagree on that point. Even if one is sure to get a "no" answer,
> regardless of
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:50:53PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in
> stroking their own ego.
Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.
> It doesn’t contribute anything to the project.
It cl
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Argh. Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you) would
> immediately be committing a federal crime.
All assuming the company in question resides in the US, or has
significant presence in the US. There is, of
Linus Torvalds was asked the same question in a Q&A session about linux. He
said 'no' while nodding his head up and down.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: David Burgess
Sender: list-bounces@lists.pfsense.orgDate: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:46:10
To: pfSense support an
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>
> So asking the question is stupid(*), because a lie is indistinguishable
> from the truth.
>
>
I disagree on that point. Even if one is sure to get a "no" answer,
regardless of the truth, it is still useful to ask the question for at
least
On 2013-10-09 19:22, Walter Parker wrote:
The big problem with asking the question "Has the NSA required you to
add a back door?" is that no small company that wants to say in
business can or will say yes (If they do, no one will trust/use the
product unless forced themselves). The company will
Argh. Anyone who answered "Yes" to your question (correctly, mind you) would
immediately be committing a federal crime.
Considering the consequences, no-one in their right mind would ever confirm
that they had been approached or received a NSL.
Which makes asking the question quite irrelevant.
-
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> My main question was not if the code includes bad things, but if the company
> behind pfSense has been approached (yet) by authorities to comply with their
> Orwellian global police state phantasy.
already answered. Twice.
_
Exactly, although this rule doesn’t just apply to “small companies”. Big
companies have shown to just roll over and give up the customer’s data.
So asking the question is stupid(*), because a lie is indistinguishable from
the truth.
No, the NSA hasn’t approached us about pfSense, or adding a
Hi Peter,
On 2013-10-09 18:20, Peter van Arkel wrote:
I also understand your point though, since the software is OSS, it
should be fairly easy to check for backdoors :)
besides the following 3 facts:
1. that I (and i guess 95% of all other users) can hardly read ANY
serious code
2. that it
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 12:10:00PM -0400, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> > From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers
> > come to mind:
> >
> > 1. Random Number generation
> > - NSA is reported to have weakened several random num
The big problem with asking the question "Has the NSA required you to add a
back door?" is that no small company that wants to say in business can or
will say yes (If they do, no one will trust/use the product unless forced
themselves). The company will agree/be forced to say no. How does one tell
On 2013-10-09 19:03, Jim Thompson wrote:
(TIC mode: on)
Sorry, but I guess the whole matter - not only concerning pfSense, but
the current threat to our civilization by our criminal governments as a
whole - is much too serious for any "TIC-modes"..
On 2013-10-09 19:03, Jim Thompson wrote:
(TIC mode: on)
Sorry, but I guess the whole matter - not only concerning pfSense, but
the current threat to our civilization by our criminal governments as a
whole - is much too serious for any "TIC-modes"..
_
On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
> From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers
> come to mind:
>
> 1. Random Number generation
> - NSA is reported to have weakened several random number generators and/or
> introduced vulnerabilities.
> - What is used i
(TIC mode: on)
I think it’s obvious that:
- ESF is a front for the NSA
- the acquisition which closed last year was really just about gaining control
of a critical component of Internet infrastructure.
- the delays getting 2.1 out the door were exclusively about getting some
last-minute backdo
On 10/9/2013 11:20 AM, Paul Kunicki wrote:
> I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
> organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
> merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
> cooperation from these guys. Does anyone e
On 2013-10-09 18:20, Paul Kunicki wrote:
I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
merit and deserves response
Exactly, Paul, you got my point!
although I doubt the NSA really needs cooperation f
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:20:11AM -0400, Paul Kunicki wrote:
> I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
> organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
> merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
> cooperation from these
>From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers
>come to mind:
1. Random Number generation
- NSA is reported to have weakened several random number generators and/or
introduced vulnerabilities.
- What is used in PFsense?
2. Crypto
- Certain protocols have been deli
On 2013-10-09 18:14, Mehma Sarja wrote:
Dear Worried user,
Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if
there are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.
Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work
onto others.
Mehma
@all: Please don't feed
> Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if
> there are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.
>
> Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work onto
> others.
To be honest, I understand the question from the worried user,
especially if his comme
I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
cooperation from these guys. Does anyone else care to comment ?
Paul Kunicki
Network Adminis
Dear Worried user,
Since pfSense is opensource, please check the code and report back if there
are any backdoors or nasty stuff in there.
Thanks for being a conscientious user and not wanting to shift work onto
others.
Mehma
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:
> Dear pfsens
Dear pfsense-team,
today I posted the following on your blog at http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
"Worried User Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 9th, 2013 at 7:55 am
Hi guys,
I want to ask if you have been approached by any US
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:11 AM, İhsan Doğan wrote:
> I'll try to upgrade to 64-bit again.
>
What will happen: the upgrade will finish, but there's no way for the
system to tell you or auto-reboot. Once you're sure it is done, you need to
reset the machine to reboot it.
__
Am 08.10.2013 14:05, schrieb Warren Baker:
>> Since I've upgraded to 2.1 rrd graphs stopped working and I'm getting
>> this error in the system log:
>>
>> php: /status_rrd_graph_img.php: Failed to create graph with error code
>> 1, the error is: ERROR: This RRD was created on other
>> architecture
Le 8 oct. 2013 à 16:45, Jim Pingle a écrit :
> On 10/7/2013 9:21 AM, Olivier Mascia wrote:
>> Have you an idea what I should look for about this issue (see linked
>> print-screen)?
>> All my OpenVPN services report an error contacting the daemon, both on
>> the status page (as in print-screen) an
We have exact the same Problem.
Timeouts in our SSH connections.
I tried it over the DSL Modem to a Server in the iNet and
over a DMZ interface to an Server in the DMZ.
to both Linux Servers timeouts with the SSH.
If i try my old Netgear Firewall, all works fine ?
Goofy
__
85 matches
Mail list logo
