sed on FreeBSD 8.x back then, which did not support ARM CPUs.
In the mean time, pfsense bases on FreeBSD 10.1, which AFAIK introduced
support for ARM.
So how about running pfSense on the R1; any updates?
Cheers
Thinker Rix
--
*Thinker Rix*, an internet user.
Please avoid TOFU in newsgroups and mai
Hi Volker,
Thank you for your time!
On 2014-04-13 14:09, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
On Sun 13 Apr 2014 22:11:41 NZST +1200, Thinker Rix wrote:
I own a hard copy of the pfSense book by Chris and Jim and have two
questions about it:
1. As a buyer of the hard copy, am I eligible to receive a
Hi,
I own a hard copy of the pfSense book by Chris and Jim and have two
questions about it:
1. As a buyer of the hard copy, am I eligible to receive a gratis
PDF-version of the book, too?
2. Is there any ETA for the hard copy version of the new edition?
Thanks
Thinker Rix
--
*Thinker Rix
Hi Jim
On 2014-04-05 20:32, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Apr 5, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Thinker Rix <mailto:thinke...@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
On 2014-04-05 07:00, Ryan Coleman wrote:
And you cannot eliminate three of this with a switch?
I don't know any method how a network switch cou
t think so.
I think you should audit your security policy.
Regards
Thinker Rix
--
*Thinker Rix*, an internet user.
Please avoid TOFU in newsgroups and mailing lists
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting)
Bitte vermeidet TOFU in Newsgroups und Mailing-Listen
(https://de.wikipedi
e the 4+ NICs configured
as separate zones.. (e.g. WAN, LAN, DMZ, WLAN)
--
*Thinker Rix*, an internet user.
Please avoid TOFU in newsgroups and mailing lists
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting)
Bitte vermeidet TOFU in Newsgroups und Mailing-Listen
(https://de.wikipedia.org
a board one day with at least 4-8 NICs.
--
*Thinker Rix*, an internet user.
Please avoid TOFU in newsgroups and mailing lists
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting)
Bitte vermeidet TOFU in Newsgroups und Mailing-Listen
(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFU
On 2014-02-14 18:51, Chris Bagnall wrote:
On 14/2/14 4:48 pm, Thinker Rix wrote:
Any ideas what could be the problem?
Have you tried entering the DNS servers your ISP supplies via PPP or
DHCP (look on the Status -> Interfaces page, they should be listed on
there) manually on the Gene
On 2014-02-14 17:57, Chris Bagnall wrote:
On 14/2/14 3:37 pm, Thinker Rix wrote:
I have had entered some domain names there in the past, which always
worked flawlessly.
Recently I changed ISP and since then the domain names are not resolved
anymore to IPs, so that the traffic using those
Dear all,
Firewall: Aliases: IP
=
I have had entered some domain names there in the past, which always
worked flawlessly.
Recently I changed ISP and since then the domain names are not resolved
anymore to IPs, so that the traffic using those aliases gets blocked by
the firewall
Dear all,
Firewall: Aliases: IP
=
I have had entered some domain names there in the past, which always
worked flawlessly.
Recently I changed ISP and since then the domain names are not resolved
anymore to IPs, so that the traffic using those aliases gets blocked by
the firewall
Hi all,
On 2013-11-06 07:53, Thinker Rix wrote:
as I am planning to buy new hardware for pfSense, I was wondering if
it is worthy to buy a CPU that supports "AES new instructions", i.e.
hardware-support for AES encyption.
As I learned in this thread (big thanks to everybody par
On 2013-11-07 17:38, Vick Khera wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Thinker Rix <mailto:thinke...@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
So if I understand you right, even if I use pfSense 2.1 (FreeBSD
8.3) on a motherboard with a brand new chipset (Intel C222) and
CPU (e.g
well or not.
The list is good, but always out of date. If not found on the list,
but somethign similar is on it, then definitely ask.
Ok!
Thank you
Best regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
the i5 with the Supermicro X9/X10 series
motherboards that I want to buy, I will either go for the Xeon - or buy
the Pentium now and upgrade to the Xeon later on, if performance should
turn out to be not enough.
hth.
Yes, thank you for your help so far!
Regards
Thinker Rix
Hi Chris,
On 2013-11-06 12:31, Chris Bagnall wrote:
On 6/11/13 7:11 am, Thinker Rix wrote:
Unfortunately the motherboards I plan to buy supports only the
above-mentioned CPUs.
- Pentium
- 4th generation core i3
- Xeon E3-1200 v3
If your board supports a Core i3, it is *very* unlikely that it
ce testing for AES-NI on pfSense.
There are reports that FreeBSD doesn't support AES-NI very well.
Thank you for this information, Jim. So I figure, that buying the Xeon
just for it's AES functions would (currently) be a waste of money.
Best
On 2013-11-06 15:22, Vick Khera wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Thinker Rix <mailto:thinke...@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
Would pfSense use this CPU instructions so to
hardware-encrypt/decrypt all VPN traffic (openVPN)?
Woud pfSense benefit from this in any other
3.1 GHz 3.5 GHz
The Xeon has hardware support for AES encryption that might speed
up VPN traffic?
Which of the CPUs do you advise me to pick?
Thanks for any feedback,
best regards
Thinker Rix
I don't see a Core i5 on that list. See if you can get one of those.
On 2013-10-24 19:30, Thinker Rix wrote:
I am planning a new pfSense box and am wondering if the hardware that
I want to use will be sufficient.
Hardware:
2x Intel PRO/1000 PT Quad Port Gigabit NICs, each directly connected
via PCIe-8x to the North Bridge of the CPU
4x on
it just a pure waste of money
in my case?
Best regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
d maybe someone give me a hint
where I could look up, which chipsets FreeBSD supports and from what
version on?
Best regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
.g. producing more
reflection, etc. or something else?
Regards
Matthias May
Thank you!!
Kind regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
. because it has read-only file systems or
something similar, so that adding RAID, parity, BBU, etc. is never
needed? Or is it just a compromise that they do by weighting costs and
risk and deciding to take the risk? As I have a RAID controller and
disks on stock I c
regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
update the guide myself? Otherwise maybe someone
with writing rights to the CMS wants to update the manual.
Cheers
Thinker Rix
P.S. Maybe an update to this page would be convenient, too:
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_upgrade_my_pfSense_through_the_web_in
certain
extent.
So incorporating in a country where the government can not as easily
inject back doors eliminates this threat and *that* is what we are
talking about here.
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
So asking the question is stupid
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.
On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:
Otherwise: get off my lawn.
I'm no
On 2013-10-11 21:20, Walter Parker wrote:
Who would you trust more that ESF? Why,specifically, would you trust
another group of people to be more trustworthy?
The point is not untrusting ESF or anybody else. The point is that ESF
is based in the USA, a country where the current government can
nce the software itself is free software, it
is not owned by anybody.
So summarizing:
If pfSense would be incorporated as a foundation at some place (many
countries would be possible) outside the USA, it could be a solution to
this I guess.
Regards
Thinker Rix
__
he door at ESF
and force them to do things they don't like. We all - as a community -
should think and act pro-actively to that and take appropriate measures
to protect pfSense, ESF and the key people such as Chris Buechler and
his partners from this realistic thread in time.
Best rega
d kill the project probably.
I am not sure that I understand what you mean. Is it what you want to
say: In the case that the security software that you use gets
infiltrated, you would prefer not learning about this fact, but just
continue using it?
Greetings
T
amped headers of the internet traffic for discovery purposes
from the authorities. The best part of this, it is paid for by the
customers, since the ISP needs to pay for the system and storage.
Yes, but see above.
Regards,
Seth
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
Li
On 2013-10-10 19:25, Jim Pingle wrote:
Thank you very much, Jim!
Best regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
readers, etc.
Take for an example how many postings are not quoting correctly, but
have "text on top - full quote below" which is a no-go in newsgroups and
mailing lists...
Cheers,
Paul.
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On 2013-10-10 18:54, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 10/10/2013 11:35 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:
Is there someone who knows wich version of FreeBSD 2.1 is based on?
8.3-RELEASE-p11
It was going to be 8.3 the TBD part was for the patchlevel. It ended up
being -p11 by the time 2.1 was released.
Thank you
Hi Warren,
thank you for your quick reply!
On 2013-10-10 18:39, Warren Baker wrote:
On 10 Oct 2013 17:36, "Thinker Rix" <mailto:thinke...@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi all!
> I want to upgrade from 2.0.1 to 2.1 and am wondering which
FreeBSD-version 2.1 is based
eficial to add your posting to his thread, not to have
2 concurrent threads - und thus concurrent discussions - about the same
topic.
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
uot;.
Is there someone who knows wich version of FreeBSD 2.1 is based on?
Thanks & regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On 2013-10-10 17:25, Alexandre Paradis wrote:
same ip for me tried to remove me from the mailing list.
Mine, too, *roflcopter*. What a noob.
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
switch *right at this very moment* to a discussion thread that
is of more interest for you and there you go!
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
's absolutely crazy!!
This thread is clearly about discussing pfsense, therefore it is
on-topic, I could equally take the stance, take your technical
discussions to the dev list, however I am not the type of exclusive
close-minded minded person that you appear to be. Please stop
hijackin
and telling the participants of
that discussion that they should go elsewhere because they do not
discuss what you find interesting and relevant - or you simply do not
know how to use a mailing list properly. I suggest you go learn how to
use a proper news/mailing-list reader. Hint: Thr
Hi Giles
On 2013-10-10 12:39, Giles Coochey wrote:
On 10/10/2013 09:38, Thinker Rix wrote:
On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
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
majority.
And by the way, I am a member of this list for quite a while.
*This list is NOT a place where anyone is welcome to barge in and tell
people "the proper way" of using it.*
Exactly. How about you follow your own advice?
Thinker Rix
__
On 2013-10-10 01:27, Robison, Dave wrote:
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
eader properly (how about "view >
threaded mode"..) , instead of blaming others to bore you.
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your unemotional, factual statement!
On 2013-10-10 03:17, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote:
today I posted the following on your blog at http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=712
On 2013-10-10 01:13, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote:
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.
Thank you!
BTW, you pushed to the corne
at to
write and what not because you are bored about what they discuss is not
really a solution :-)
A reader that is capable of threaded view mode is e.g. Mozilla
Thunderbird (View > Sort by > Threaded)
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing l
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
tually answers, but to cause
trouble by causing the effect described at the beginning of my email
(these are called trolls).
What trouble do you refer to? I only read some aggressive/ snappy
answers which - frankly - I find pretty awkward reactions to my
monly I talk as much as i like to
- I still don't know what to do with the answer
- I have no plan
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
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
mers, that in reality is not
really encrypted anymore; but he chose to stand up and blow the whistle.
Great guy.
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
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
laughing about that...
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
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
rity software project if it is secure is
obnoxious? I think it is the most important question of all.
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
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
of class
action lawsuits
I do not want to sue or otherwise harm anybody.
I only asked a very simple question and now read the answers. Very
interesting answers, I think.
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfs
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
?
Regards
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
answer of the company to my question?
Thank you
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
e might be a chance to get an "official statement"
of ESF, maybe without any "ifs and buts"?
This would really help in this uncertain times that we all have to
suffer currently.
Thank you,
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing li
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
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 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"..
_
routers with the fact that they very well bother knocking the
doors of small businesses with niche products, I guess my question is
quite legitimate!
Greetings
Thinker Rix
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
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
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 2013-02-23 09:42, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Thinker Rix wrote:
Hello,
there is a bug in the backup/restore function of pfSense 2.0.2 which makes
it impossible to restore encrypted backups, rendering those backups useless.
Thanks, opened:
https
Hello,
there is a bug in the backup/restore function of pfSense 2.0.2 which
makes it impossible to restore encrypted backups, rendering those
backups useless.
==
You can easily reproduce the bug by making a backup with the following
settings:
- Backup area:
74 matches
Mail list logo
