What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, firm...@gmail.com firm...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's)
I had some pretty good experiences with older Soekris models (net-4801)
acting as fanless routers
Op 8 mei 2013 om 16:24 heeft C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws het volgende
geschreven:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, firm...@gmail.com firm...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's)
I had some
On 05/08/13 15:10, firm...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's)
I use an alix2d3 running embedded pfSense as a 3 NIC (WAN, LAN, DMZ)
router. If you only need 2 NICs go for the alix2d2. You can also
On 05/08/13 15:48, Arthur Chance wrote:
On 05/08/13 15:10, firm...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's)
I use an alix2d3 running embedded pfSense as a 3 NIC (WAN, LAN, DMZ)
router. If you only need
with load but if do not plan such high speeds it work like
charm..Kind of expensive though...
Peter
On 08/05/2013 17:10, firm...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's
On 05/08/2013 9:10 am, firm...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the best option out there for a mini-pc to run FreeBSD as a
home
router/firewall? (needs to have 2 nic's)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
I have special purpose situation where I need to wait until the boot
process has completed the starting of the system and then start the
firewall (ipfw or pf). Commenting out the firewall statements from the
hosts /etc/rc.conf does stop the firewall from starting at boot time.
Is there some
Joe writes:
I have special purpose situation where I need to wait until the boot
process has completed the starting of the system and then start the
firewall (ipfw or pf). Commenting out the firewall statements from the
hosts /etc/rc.conf does stop the firewall from starting at boot
Le Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:25:46 -0400,
Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com a écrit :
Hello,
I have special purpose situation where I need to wait until the boot
process has completed the starting of the system and then start the
firewall (ipfw or pf). Commenting out the firewall statements from
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:25:46 -0400, Joe wrote:
Is there some format of the service command that could be used to
manually start the selected firewall?
How about the rc.d framework?
# /etc/rc.d/ipfw start
Or
# service ipfw start
Both will honor the firewall_type= setting
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
Darrel levi...@iglou.com wrote:
Packet Filter does not work
Hi,
you might want to give more information other than that.
Andreas
--
GnuPG key : 0x2A573565|http://www.gnupg.org/howtos/de/
Fingerprint: 925D 2089 0BF9 8DE5 9166 33BB F0FD CD37
Darrel wrote:
Hello,
When I moved from -fbsd82 to -fbsd90 it required a total reinstall since
Packet Filter did not *work* any longer. Now that I have moved from
-fbsd90 to the new release candidate, Packet Filter does not work
considering at least IPv6 and ssh.
I have tested a simple
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Fbsd8 wrote:
Darrel wrote:
Hello,
When I moved from -fbsd82 to -fbsd90 it required a total reinstall since
Packet Filter did not *work* any longer. Now that I have moved from
-fbsd90 to the new release candidate, Packet Filter does not work
considering at least IPv6
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Andreas Rudisch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
Darrel levi...@iglou.com wrote:
Packet Filter does not work
Hi,
you might want to give more information other than that.
when i updated from fbsd82 to fbsd90 using buildworld, buildkernel,
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:00:27 -0400 (EDT), Darrel wrote:
when i updated from fbsd82 to fbsd90 using buildworld, buildkernel,
installkernel, reboot, installworld, mergemaster, and make check-old, then
packet filter simply did not load.
That's nmot 100% the procedure. Please refer to the
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:00:27 -0400 (EDT), Darrel wrote:
when i updated from fbsd82 to fbsd90 using buildworld, buildkernel,
installkernel, reboot, installworld, mergemaster, and make check-old, then
packet filter simply did not load.
That's nmot 100% the
Hello,
When I moved from -fbsd82 to -fbsd90 it required a total reinstall since
Packet Filter did not *work* any longer. Now that I have moved from
-fbsd90 to the new release candidate, Packet Filter does not work
considering at least IPv6 and ssh.
I have tested a simple pf.conf on this
I have some trouble with pf on freebsd bridge.
Network topology:
( untrust ) -- { em0 , bridge0 , em1 } -- ( trust )
Bridge Network: 10.1.1.0/24
bridge0 IP: 10.1.1.1 ( freebsd's ip )
default gw: 10.1.1.254 ( in untrust area )
server: 10.1.1.101 ~ 200 ( in trust area )
pf.conf on freebsd
At 07:18 PM 5/30/2012, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From jbiq...@intranet.com.mx Wed May 30 13:48:05 2012
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:47:34 -0500
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
From: Jorge Biquez jbiq...@intranet.com.mx
Subject: Re: Firewall, blocking POP3
Cc: freebsd-questions
so no problem on that but I rather
to be sure .
I was thinking on the following options.
- Stopping the service, port 110 to respond and open it everytime I
want to download email.
- Install a firewall and block all the IP's but they are trying from
a lot different ones.
- Maybe changing
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed May 30 13:16:37 2012
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:30 -0500
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
From: Jorge Biquez jbiq...@intranet.com.mx
Cc:
Subject: Firewall, blocking POP3
Hello all.
I am sorry if the question is too basic.
I have
Bonomi wrote:
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed May 30 13:16:37 2012
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:30 -0500
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
From: Jorge Biquez jbiq...@intranet.com.mx
Cc:
Subject: Firewall, blocking POP3
Hello all.
I am sorry if the question is too basic.
I
See /usr/ports/security/py-fail2ban (http://www.fail2ban.org/). Used
in conjunction with FreeBSD's ipfw or pf firewall facility, you can
ban an attacking IP address for a set period of time after a
configurable amount of failed attempts. Fail2ban watches your log
files for you and then triggers
From jbiq...@intranet.com.mx Wed May 30 13:48:05 2012
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:47:34 -0500
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
From: Jorge Biquez jbiq...@intranet.com.mx
Subject: Re: Firewall, blocking POP3
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Hello.
Thanks a lot!. Simple
Til: FreeBSD Questions; FreeBSD Current; FreeBSD doc
Emne: Re: pf firewall and ftp
Fbsd8 wrote:
Running 9.0 as a gateway host with pf firewall enabled.
FTP is launched by inetd.
Both active and passive ftp works from lan pc's to the host ftp.
The lan ftp session can be initiated from the host
-questi...@freebsd.org] På vegne af Fbsd8
Sendt: den 16 april 2012 04:31
Til: FreeBSD Questions; FreeBSD Current; FreeBSD doc
Emne: Re: pf firewall and ftp
Fbsd8 wrote:
Running 9.0 as a gateway host with pf firewall enabled.
FTP is launched by inetd.
Both active and passive ftp works from lan
There's also web available manuals for probably every release of OpenBSD here:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=pf.confmanpath=OpenBSD+4.5
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Running 9.0 as a gateway host with pf firewall enabled.
FTP is launched by inetd.
Both active and passive ftp works from lan pc's to the host ftp.
The lan ftp session can be initiated from the host or any lan pc and
things work because there are no rules on the lan interface except
single pass
Fbsd8 wrote:
Running 9.0 as a gateway host with pf firewall enabled.
FTP is launched by inetd.
Both active and passive ftp works from lan pc's to the host ftp.
The lan ftp session can be initiated from the host or any lan pc and
things work because there are no rules on the lan interface except
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:34 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
In the pf log I see the rule number of the rule used to create the log
file entry. pfctl -sr command does not list the rule number of each rule
it lists.
Hi,
Try pfctl -sr -vv
---Mike
Thanks the -vv printed the rule number
In the pf log I see the rule number of the rule used to create the log
file entry. pfctl -sr command does not list the rule number of each rule
it lists.
So my question is how do I relate the rule number shown in the log
listing back to the text rule file rules?
On 4/11/2012 8:34 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
In the pf log I see the rule number of the rule used to create the log
file entry. pfctl -sr command does not list the rule number of each rule
it lists.
Hi,
Try pfctl -sr -vv
---Mike
--
---
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex
Hello,
Was running 8.2 and virtualbox 3 - wiped Freebsd 8.2, installed 9.0,
installed latest virtualbox port 4.0.14 and the networking broke in my
vms.
Setup I had:
{vm1,vm2,etc}--- vbox internal network - em2[firewall VM]em1 --
re0[physical box]--ISP
the firewall vm has this:
ifconfig_em0
Hello,
Was running 8.2 and virtualbox 3 - wiped Freebsd 8.2, installed 9.0,
installed latest virtualbox port 4.0.14 and the networking broke in my
vms.
Setup I had:
{vm1,vm2,etc}--- vbox internal network - em2[firewall VM]em1 --
re0[physical box]--ISP
the firewall vm has
Hello,
Was running 8.2 and virtualbox 3 - wiped Freebsd 8.2, installed 9.0,
installed latest virtualbox port 4.0.14 and the networking broke in my
vms.
Setup I had:
{vm1,vm2,etc}--- vbox internal network - em2[firewall VM]em1 --
re0[physical box]--ISP
the firewall vm has
Back Story:
Old Server (X32 system, probably FreeBSD 4.3-ish)
New Server (Dual core, X64 with plenty of RAM) running 8.1-RELEASE
New Server was put in production last night as a core router, with
the same rc.conf, firewall rule set and config from the old router
that has been working
A Is there an easy firewall setup available somewhere (like the one
A referenced below but for FreeBSD)?
Here's a script you can use to generate a rules file for IPF.
--
Karl,
I have used your script and it generated me a nice ipf.rules file
/* ipf.rules
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Antonio Olivares
olivares14...@gmail.com wrote:
A Is there an easy firewall setup available somewhere (like the one
A referenced below but for FreeBSD)?
Here's a script you can use to generate a rules file for IPF.
--
Karl,
I have used your script
From: Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com
To: Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com
Cc: Bill Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 6:35:19 PM
Subject: Re: IPFW Firewall NAT inbound port-redirect
We're not talking
: Re: IPFW Firewall NAT inbound port-redirect
We're not talking about natd. The question was about the use of ipfirewall
nat.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
Is there a way of specifying
and you will find many helpful articles. But take my word
for this, you can do exactly what you want with IPFW+NATD. There are
those who will probably promote PF as the firewall of choice as well. It
all depends on what you become familiar with.
All trueness here. I have used all three: IPFW
google searches and you will find many helpful articles. But take my word
for this, you can do exactly what you want with IPFW+NATD. There are
those who will probably promote PF as the firewall of choice as well. It
all depends on what you become familiar with.
All trueness here. I have used
OK - I'm confused. Could be all the top posting. ;-)
testbed# man ipfw
Formatting page, please wait...Done.
IPFW(8) FreeBSD System Manager's Manual
IPFW(8)
NAME
ipfw -- User interface for firewall, traffic shaper, packet scheduler,
in-kernel NAT
From: Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com
To: Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 1:07:31 PM
Subject: Re: IPFW Firewall NAT inbound port-redirect
In the last episode (Jul 11), Michael Sierchio said
:
From: Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com
To: Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Mon, July 11, 2011 1:07:31 PM
Subject: Re: IPFW Firewall NAT inbound port-redirect
In the last episode (Jul 11), Michael Sierchio said:
Sorry
In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
Is there a way of specifying a particular public address if there is
more than one bound to the external interface? A la
nat 123 config if re0.2 log same_ports redirect_port tcp 10.0.0.3:22
102.10.22.1:
Yes; the redirect_port syntax
We're not talking about natd. The question was about the use of ipfirewall nat.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
Is there a way of specifying a particular public address if there is
more than one
In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Dan Nelson dnel...@allantgroup.com wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 12), Michael Sierchio said:
Is there a way of specifying a particular public address if there is
more than one bound to the external
Sorry for the naive question, but most of my old rulesets still use
natd, and I've only used built-in nat for outbound traffic. I'd like
to redirect certain ports on certain addresses to the same ports on
internal (RFC1918) addresses. The examples in the man page aren't
helpful, and the handbook
Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com
To: Leonardo M. Ramé martinr...@yahoo.com; questi...@freebsd.org
Sent: Fri, May 6, 2011 6:53:56 AM
Subject: Re: Home firewall with DLink router FreeBSD
From: Leonardo M. Ramé martinr...@yahoo.com
To: questi...@freebsd.org
Sent: Thu
From: Leonardo M. Ramé martinr...@yahoo.com
To: questi...@freebsd.org
Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 3:44:36 PM
Subject: Home firewall with DLink router FreeBSD
The short answer is a definite yes, but you will need two NIC's in the FreeBSD
server. I have a FreeBSD
On Fri, 6 May 2011 04:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Bill Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com articulated:
Please excuse me. I typed my reply below all the existing text but
somehow it ended up being formatted into the middle of this one. Can
someone give me the tip for insuring I don't top post and that my
to know if its possible to use the FreeBSD server as a Firewall
for the whole network, securing LAN and WiFi connections. If this can be done,
then how? could you point me to some howto?.
Thanks in advance,
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com
to know if its possible to use the FreeBSD server as a Firewall
for the whole network, securing LAN and WiFi connections. If this can be done,
then how? could you point me to some howto?.
P.S.: this is the 2nd time I send this email, the first time it got caught by
SpamAssassin. Maybe because
, the server only have one network card.
It becomes difficult to use a server as a firewall unless you have an
inside and an outside network. Easiest is to simply add another
network card, should that be possible on your server. Another
possibility is to use VLAN taggging and connect the server
/database server.
I must add, the server only have one network card.
I would like to know if its possible to use the FreeBSD server as a
Firewall for the whole network, securing LAN and WiFi connections. If
this can be done, then how? could you point me to some howto?.
--As for the rest, it is mine
--- On Thu, 5/5/11, Jon Radel j...@radel.com wrote:
From: Jon Radel j...@radel.com
Subject: Re: Home firewall with DLink router and FreeBSD
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 9:50 PM
On 5/5/11 8:37 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
Hi, at home I have a DLink Dir
at 1:48 PM, Karl Vogel vogelke+u...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:43:33 -0500,
Antonio Olivares olivares14...@gmail.com said:
A Is there an easy firewall setup available somewhere (like the one
A referenced below but for FreeBSD)?
Here's a script you can use to generate a rules file
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:34:41 -0500, Antonio Olivares olivares14...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I have a base FreeBSD 8.2 system on one
machine and I would like to setup a firewall that allows me to visit
websites and not allow incoming traffic. Something easy to set up
On 26 April 2011 08:52, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:34:41 -0500, Antonio Olivares
olivares14...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I have a base FreeBSD 8.2 system on one
machine and I would like to setup a firewall that allows me to visit
websites
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Dear kind folks,
Is there an easy firewall setup available somewhere(like the one
referenced below but for FreeBSD)?
i.e, like I saw reading in Distrowatch an easy way(using a page on the
net: http://connie.slackware.com/~alien/efg/)
I have read that there is pf
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Polytropon wrote:
You can easily do this with IPFW (from the base system)
Step 1: Create a file /etc/ipfw.conf which will contain
your firewall rules.
/etc/rc.firewall has a bunch of predefined firewall types, usable as-is
or as examples. Instructions are in that file
Dear kind folks,
Is there an easy firewall setup available somewhere(like the one
referenced below but for FreeBSD)?
i.e, like I saw reading in Distrowatch an easy way(using a page on the
net: http://connie.slackware.com/~alien/efg/)
I have read that there is pf and there is an implementation
--As of April 25, 2011 7:43:33 PM -0500, Antonio Olivares is alleged to
have said:
I don't know which one to use, is there a page, howto (build a
firewall or convert an existing one) to use here? All I want is to be
allowed to visit websites but don't allow anyone out there to come in
somehow
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Daniel Staal dst...@usa.net wrote:
--As of April 25, 2011 7:43:33 PM -0500, Antonio Olivares is alleged to have
said:
I don't know which one to use, is there a page, howto (build a
firewall or convert an existing one) to use here? All I want is to be
allowed
On 02/01/11 00:40, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:58, Da Rock
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote:
Yes. Me unfortunately, but I did manage to pick it up quite quickly though.
I had a little thief attack one of my ports and attempt login on the
firewall. I had
Le Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:39:18 +1000,
Da Rock freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au a écrit :
I spent some time playing with pf and pf.conf, and followed the
directions in the handbook. It redirected me to the openbsd site for
pf.conf, and recommended it as the most comprehensive
attack one of my ports and attempt login on
the firewall. I had to change it to 'block in $log on $ext_if all
block out $log on $ext_if all' to actually block the traffic. Bit of a
doozy really, I'm still monitoring the traffic very closely with tcpdump
on the interface and not the log.
Thankfully
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:58, Da Rock
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote:
Yes. Me unfortunately, but I did manage to pick it up quite quickly though.
I had a little thief attack one of my ports and attempt login on the
firewall. I had to change it to 'block in $log on $ext_if
On 01/29/11 23:50, Iñigo Ortiz de Urbina wrote:
I think that kind of user should never be in charge of anything security related
Reading my own post I realise I forgot my question due to kiddie issues
that were occuring in my vicinity. That is, how would one go about this?
As for user
I spent some time playing with pf and pf.conf, and followed the
directions in the handbook. It redirected me to the openbsd site for
pf.conf, and recommended it as the most comprehensive documentation for pf.
Firstly, I didn't find that. I had to translate the instructions into
the current
On 11/25/10 03:01, Gary Kline wrote:
Folks (mostly Adam),
Hang on a sec. I think I misread what my friend said.
Following is a snip of what he said was good; that this was among
the stuff he installed a few years back and now was much better::
ALIX.2D13 system board - $115
CompactFlash card
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:48:47PM +, Arthur Chance wrote:
On 11/25/10 03:01, Gary Kline wrote:
Folks (mostly Adam),
Hang on a sec. I think I misread what my friend said.
Following is a snip of what he said was good; that this was among
the stuff he installed a few years back and now
On 11/25/10 18:22, Gary Kline wrote:
[Huge snip]
What I don't understand is the CF card and howto install
pfSense. I'll re-read wherever I have to but some clues would
certainly help. I installed pfSense by CDROM initially and
figure this time the install would
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 07:16:01PM +, Arthur Chance wrote:
On 11/25/10 18:22, Gary Kline wrote:
[Huge snip]
Super :-)
What I don't understand is the CF card and howto install
pfSense. I'll re-read wherever I have to but some clues would
certainly help. I
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs.
Dunno about having them on-board, but anything with a Poulsbo SCH
should have two PCIe channels, each of which could be used for a
NIC.
___
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:26:53 -0800
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Dunno about having them on-board, but anything with a Poulsbo SCH
should have two PCIe channels, each of which could be used for a
NIC.
You also get network cards with multiple ports which would work. e.g.
On 24.11.2010 02:43, Gary Kline wrote:
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards on this list have a clue?
http
Bruce Cran writes:
You also get network cards with multiple ports which would work. e.g.
http://reviews.cnet.com/adapters-nics/d-link-dfe-570tx/1707-3380_7-785663.html
The machine I'm typing on has a two port Intel Pro/1000-GT; I
cannot recommend it highly enough.
One
--On November 23, 2010 17:43:12 -0800 Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards
On 11/24/10 01:43, Gary Kline wrote:
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards on this list have a clue?
I don't
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:03:56PM +, Arthur Chance wrote:
On 11/24/10 01:43, Gary Kline wrote:
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards
a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards on this list have a clue?
--
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service
UnixJourney Toward the Dawn, E-Book: http://www.thought.org
The 7.97a release of Jottings: http
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
Anybody?
Gary, in case you didn't catch it the pcengines link already given to you is
low power setup with comsumption comparable or better than an Atom. It's
also been tested with FreeBSD and pfSense according to the
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:14:01PM -0600, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
Anybody?
Gary, in case you didn't catch it the pcengines link already given to you is
low power setup with comsumption comparable or better than
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:03:56PM +, Arthur Chance wrote:
On 11/24/10 01:43, Gary Kline wrote:
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
Folks (mostly Adam),
Hang on a sec. I think I misread what my friend said.
Following is a snip of what he said was good; that this was among
the stuff he installed a few years back and now was much better::
ALIX.2D13
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards on this list have a clue?
You'd probably have to build one yourself out
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:45:41PM -0600, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
Folks (mostly Adam),
Hang on a sec. I think I misread what my friend said.
Following is a snip of what he said was good; that this was among
the stuff
Maybe someone on-list can help me; after 5+ hours of clicking and
typing, I can't find an atom cpu computer with dual NICs. I
_thought_ I'd found a computer to replace to Kayak firewall
[pfSense], but nada.
Any wizards on this list have a clue?
--
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http
Folks,
The weakest (and probably most costly power-wise) link among my
three computers is my '98 Kayak that runs pfSense. I just found a
computer that runs ATOM and has two NICS ... i need two because of
the way things were configured. My Dell server and my AMD
homebrew that was build out of
Le Fri, 01 Oct 2010 08:24:30 -0400,
Kevin Kobb kk...@skylinecorp.com a écrit :
Both would probably be fine. However, I would recommend taking a look
at pfsense if I were you. It is made to do what you want without as
much of the overhead as a full blown *BSD install.
It is easier to
On 30 September 2010 23:19, Patrick Lamaiziere patf...@davenulle.orgwrote:
Hi,
We are in the process to replace two Cisco Pix firewalls and one Cisco
router with two servers running PF with carp. The network is large
(it is an University) and all will depend on this two machines.
We have
I can say that both of them are pretty good choice, in my personal
experience I had the same configuration that you are planning to implement
qith two servers on OpenBsd 4.6 + carp+ bgp as a router in a huge network ,
the only problem was some well know bug with carp and bgp..that for some
reason
Both would probably be fine. However, I would recommend taking a look at
pfsense if I were you. It is made to do what you want without as much of
the overhead as a full blown *BSD install.
It is easier to configure, update, the documentation is good, and you
can get top notch paid support
On 1 October 2010 05:29, krad kra...@gmail.com wrote:
In my experiance freebsd should work fine. However I would say openbsd is
probably better suited to your needs, due to its tighter security model
(auditing)
Krad, I was under the impression that 'audit' from TrustedBSD is built
into
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:40:56AM -0400, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
On 1 October 2010 05:29, krad kra...@gmail.com wrote:
In my experiance freebsd should work fine. However I would say openbsd is
probably better suited to your needs, due to its tighter security model
(auditing)
Krad, I was
On 1 October 2010 10:16, Daniel Bye
freebsd-questi...@slightlystrange.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:40:56AM -0400, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
Krad, I was under the impression that 'audit' from TrustedBSD is built
into FreeBSD. Is there a facility in OpenBSD that is better or is
there
1 - 100 of 1122 matches
Mail list logo
