LOL. That simple eh?
Thanks.
On Mar 4, 2015 8:27 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> > Pardon the hijack but if I was using dnsmasq and upgraded to 2.2 and
> wanted
> > to use unbound instead whats the best way to switch? (Note: already did
> > the upgrade to 2.2).
>
> services / dns forwarder / disable
>
> Pardon the hijack but if I was using dnsmasq and upgraded to 2.2 and wanted
> to use unbound instead whats the best way to switch? (Note: already did
> the upgrade to 2.2).
services / dns forwarder / disable
services / dns resolver / disable
___
pfSen
> Pardon the hijack but if I was using dnsmasq and upgraded to 2.2 and wanted
> to use unbound instead whats the best way to switch? (Note: already did
> the upgrade to 2.2).
services / dns forwarder / disable
services / dns resolver / enabla
___
pfSens
Pardon the hijack but if I was using dnsmasq and upgraded to 2.2 and wanted
to use unbound instead whats the best way to switch? (Note: already did
the upgrade to 2.2).
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
> On 28/02/2015 15:16, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> if i upgraded, can i cau
On 28/02/2015 15:16, Randy Bush wrote:
if i upgraded, can i cause it to switch to unbound?
Yes: pfSense 2.2 comes with unbound *instead of* bind.
pfSense 2.1.x can have unbound installed as a package.
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.or
> Nothing at all is allowed on WAN by default, hence there is no open DNS
> resolver by default. dnsmasq binds to *:53 by default, so if you do open
> up your WAN rules excessively, you'll have an open resolver open to the
> Internet. You can control interface bindings in its configuration. In
On 2/26/2015 6:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
could someone whack me with a clue bat as to why the default install has
filters for rfc1918 space yet does not filter being an open dns resolver
on the wan? and there is a check-box for the former and not the latter
(that i could see/understand).
Nothi
Look again. The default WAN rules block all inbound traffic on 2.1.5 and 2.2.
This is actually implemented by the absence of any default rules on WAN.
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> could someone whack me with a clue bat as to why the default install has
> filters for rf
could someone whack me with a clue bat as to why the default install has
filters for rfc1918 space yet does not filter being an open dns resolver
on the wan? and there is a check-box for the former and not the latter
(that i could see/understand).
randy
___
