Im running pfsense version FreeBSD pfSense.local 6.1-RELEASE-p10 being used as
a business firewall / VPN machine. Users need to be able to VPN in from thier
windows laptops internet and reach a windows machine on the internal network.
Which VPN product on the pfsense platform do you recommend ?
Hello,
I have 10 sites with pfsense and openvpn and works very well.
On 7/11/07, Brent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im running pfsense version FreeBSD pfSense.local 6.1-RELEASE-p10 being
used as
a business firewall / VPN machine. Users need to be able to VPN in from
thier
windows laptops
I have seen some discussion on this topic in the past and according to what
I have read, it is supposed to be resolved. However I cannot get it to
work. I know the ftp server is set up just fine because it is fully
accessible from within my LAN (using its LAN address). However, no matter
how I
Please note that this may not just be a matter of preference to have the second
pfsense box designated as secondary dhcp server. I am also hoping it will
resolve the issue I reported earlier of running out of free IPs from the
dynamic range even before the stash is exhausted. I have
Hi,
We are comparing the use of PfSense and Cisco pix to do IPSec tunnels,
firewalling, and QOS.
How does PfSense compares to PIX, on the topic of known vulnerabilities
and corrections?
Regards,
Ugo
-
To unsubscribe,
This is probably not the recommended method, but I have FTP setup using NAT
port forwards from our public address to the private one with the FTP helper
disabled. I had to setup the FTP server to use a specific range of ports for
the dynamic ports and them forwarded that range to the FTP
Please clarify. If you are referring to IPS, you get what you pay for
(and in the case of PIX, I'm not convinced you actually do get what
you paid for).
--Bill
On 7/11/07, Ugo Bellavance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We are comparing the use of PfSense and Cisco pix to do IPSec
Bill Marquette wrote:
Please clarify. If you are referring to IPS, you get what you pay for
(and in the case of PIX, I'm not convinced you actually do get what
you paid for).
Is there an history of security holes in these components of PfSense
(PF, IPSec-Tools, QOS)?
Ugo
I know of no official audit of our code. Nor have I ever seen a post
to bugtraq, full-disclosure, or anything on secunia. But take that
for what it's worth...nothing.
--Bill
On 7/11/07, Ugo Bellavance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Marquette wrote:
Please clarify. If you are referring to
Hello! As the title states, I have a WRAP board with two Atheros cards
running 1.2-BETA-2. Unfortunately, pfSense is only detecting one of the
cards. Monowall is able to detect and use both. Is this a limitation of
pfSense or a bug in this version? Here is the bootup log:
Dec 31 00:00:52
they openly list what versions of what components they use. you would have to
reference the individual authors of said components to find their history of
vulnerabilities.
as for the pfSense people, they have a habit of working and fixing issues with
the core of pfSense pretty soon after you
Nevermind... please ignore my idiocy... one of my cards is bad... :-(
Tim Nelson
Technical Consultant
Rockbochs Inc.
Tim Nelson wrote:
Hello! As the title states, I have a WRAP board with two Atheros cards
running 1.2-BETA-2. Unfortunately, pfSense is only detecting one of
the cards.
Am 11.07.2007 um 20:53 schrieb Bill Marquette:
I know of no official audit of our code. Nor have I ever seen a post
to bugtraq, full-disclosure, or anything on secunia. But take that
for what it's worth...nothing.
A code audit of the GUI/back-end would be pretty nice.
But even if the
Also, with all of the money that you can save on technician costs and
hardware by implementing something like pfsense, you might be able to
afford an additional layer of transparent firewalling or some other
security hardware/software or redundancy that you might otherwise be
unable to afford.
Oops!!! I didn't realize I had jumped topics. :(
Vaughn Reid III
Vaughn L. Reid III wrote:
Also, with all of the money that you can save on technician costs and
hardware by implementing something like pfsense, you might be able to
afford an additional layer of transparent firewalling or
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 23:38 +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote:
Am 11.07.2007 um 20:53 schrieb Bill Marquette:
I know of no official audit of our code. Nor have I ever seen a post
to bugtraq, full-disclosure, or anything on secunia. But take that
for what it's worth...nothing.
A code
if i am site A, and i have an ipsec vpn to site B and site C. right now, i
can ping from A-B, and from A-C (and vice versa). is there anyway to set up
to allow site B to ping site C, without setting up a tunnel between them (ie,
to pass thru site A?
just curious,
--
Jonathan Horne
17 matches
Mail list logo
