pfSense bugtracker: Issueshttps://redmine.pfsense.org/https://redmine.pfsense.org/favicon.ico?16780521162024-02-21T19:59:52ZpfSense bugtracker
Redmine pfSense Plus - Feature #15280 (New): Boot Environments 2.0https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/152802024-02-21T19:59:52ZChristian McDonaldcmcdonald@netgate.com
<p>Changes:</p>
<ul>
<li>Configuration History is now a separate page and is no longer part of Backup & Restore.</li>
<li>Configuration History is now aware of Boot Environments. Supports downloading, deleting and restoring across boot environment boundaries.</li>
<li>System updates are now installed in an offline clone of the running system and booted "temporarily" to facilitate automatic fallback to previous working environment.</li>
<li>Boot Verification is performed when booting temporary Boot Environments. System will automatically reboot into prior boot environment upon boot failure.</li>
</ul>
<p><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5936/clipboard-202402211456-bdjnl.png" alt="" /><br /><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5937/clipboard-202402211457-fegcy.png" alt="" /><br /><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5938/clipboard-202402211457-rbjkq.png" alt="" /><br /><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5939/clipboard-202402211457-fcvqv.png" alt="" /><br /><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5940/clipboard-202402211458-ydyne.png" alt="" /></p> pfSense Packages - Feature #15249 (In Progress): Ability to adjust MTU & MSS on tailscale interfacehttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/152492024-02-09T15:48:44ZChristopher Cope
<p>Tailscale itself has an environment variable to adjust this TS_DEBUG_MTU. However, it does seem to be primarily for testing.</p>
<p>We have had a customer reach out to us requesting this.</p>
<p><a class="external" href="https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/issues/8219">https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/issues/8219</a></p>
<p>As mentioned on <a class="external" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14780">https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14780</a> assigning tailscale0 to adjust this value isn't an option.</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #15177 (New): Add an option to choose an interface that the Tailscale ...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/151772024-01-20T15:30:19ZDanilo Zrenjanin
<p>Currently, it is not possible to specify the interface that the Tailscale service will use to connect to the Login Server. In a situation where there are multiple WANs, and you want to make changes on the primary WAN, doing so will disconnect you from the VPN.</p> pfSense - Regression #14930 (Feedback): Clean installation using Auto (ZFS) + MBR (BIOS) does not...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/149302023-10-28T02:19:25ZBoycee .
<p>Installing pfSense 2.7.0 using the Auto (ZFS) + MBR (BIOS) options appears successful, however when the installer reboots the system, the system fails to boot successfully, with a message displayed indicating the operating system is missing.</p>
<p>It is possible to install 2.6.0 with these options (Auto (ZFS) + MBR (BIOS)) and successfully upgrade to 2.7.0.</p>
<p>I believe this issue is inherited from FreeBSD:</p>
<p><a class="external" href="https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267843">https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267843</a><br /><a class="external" href="https://reviews.freebsd.org/D40816">https://reviews.freebsd.org/D40816</a></p>
<p>Whilst this issue should ideally be resolved in future releases of pfSense, I assume it must be considering for future in-place upgrades to avoid “bricking” devices already configured in this way.</p> pfSense - Bug #14604 (New): Bugs in dhclient implementation according to RFC 2131https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/146042023-07-23T14:11:19ZNazar Mokrynskyi
<p>I had issues with one of the ISPs on pfSense and after talking to their tech support and observing what is happening I believe there are bugs in dhclient used by pfSense.<br />It is likely an upstream issue, but I don't use FreeBSD, so I report it here.<br />This is what triggers <a class="external" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14237">https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14237</a> (which I believe is a buggy gateway groups implementation in pfSense and is a distinct issue, this one is just one way to trigger it, but maybe not the only one).</p>
<p>Dump of communication between pfSense and DHCP server of ISP is also attached.<br />The issue happened on 2.6.x and still happens on 2.7.0 that I'm currently running.</p>
<p>Below is basically an English translation of the response from IPS support representative.</p>
<p>The first thing that is believed to be handling DHCPDISCOVER. According to RFC 2131:<br /> The client begins in INIT state and forms a DHCPDISCOVER message.<br /> The client SHOULD wait a random time between one and ten seconds to<br /> desynchronize the use of DHCP at startup.</p>
<p>So client must wait for DHCPOFFER up to 10 seconds. During this time client can receive answers from multiple DHCP servers and pick settings it prefers.</p>
<p>The other issue is that according to RFC 2131 Unicast request Request Renew must be done between T1 and T2. Time approximately equal tothe lease time<br />(with slight random offset) - T1 timer. pfSense's dhclient only uses T2 (0.85*lease time), this is not quite correct, request according to T2 timer is usually<br />done in case first request to extend lease failed (depends on implementation and DHCP client settings). According to RFC after T2 time client must switch to<br />REBINDING and make boardcast request, which is what happened. If cient doesn't send request/doesn't receive response within lease time then settings must be<br />cleared and procedure of obtaining IP address start over.<br />Current lease time is 10 minutes (600 seconds).<br />Separately sometimes dhclient doesn't send DHCPREQUEST within lease time, for instance record <a class="issue tracker-4 status-5 priority-4 priority-default closed" title="Todo: PPTP users integration with user manager (Closed)" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/34">#34</a> and 37, between then there was more than 600 seconds and<br />procedure to get IP address started over, which is when Internet access was temporarily lost.</p> pfSense - Regression #14410 (New): Behavior of ``earlyshellcmd`` changed, ``ngeth`` interfaces ca...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/144102023-05-24T01:27:46ZTaylor Jasko
<p>In pfSense Plus 23.01, I was leveraging <a href="https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/development/boot-commands.html#earlyshellcmd-option" class="external">earlyshellcmd</a> to create a virtual network interface & handle 802.1x authentication <em>before</em> pfSense checks whether reassignment of interfaces is required. While this specific use case has been <a href="https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/authbridge.html" class="external">recently solved</a> in 23.05 through other officially supported ways, there's another issue at hand here.</p>
<p>For some background, I'm utilizing <code>pfatt</code> (as called out in the link above) to handle 802.1x auth with AT&T. After applying the update, pfSense was unable to boot due to not finding the <code>ngeth0</code> interface that the <code>pfatt</code> script was tasked to create. This is because in 23.05, I have confirmed that the configured shell commands with the <code>earlyshellcmd</code> option are being executed later in the boot sequence than the previous release. More specifically, the <code>/etc/rc.bootup</code> PHP script was updated so that the early shell commands (which are called off by <code>system_do_shell_commands(1)</code>) are executed after the <code>while (is_interface_mismatch() == true)...</code> code block (which then halts the boot process if it fails). Previously to 23.05, <code>system_do_shell_commands(1)</code> was called before that aforementioned <code>while</code> loop, just like how pfSense CE functions today, which can be seen in the code <a href="https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/9fab01eae0698ce23979663fc18d58536dc305f0/src/etc/rc.bootup#L121-L167" class="external">here</a>.</p>
<p>While my particular issue can be solved by the newly introduced auth bridging functionality, it still begs the question of whether the changed execution sequence of <code>earlyshellcmd</code> commands being impacted was intentional or not; from my standpoint, it's a regression as other pfSense Plus users may be relying on these early shell commands executing before the networking interfaces are checked.</p>
<p>Specifically to my use case, I'll switch over to the new way of configuring this authentication method soon, however, I wanted to file this issue so the pfSense Plus team is aware of this regression. Please let me know if you require any more insight into this problem.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p> pfSense - Bug #14397 (New): DHCPv4 client (dhclient) does not use 802.1p Priority tagging on DHCP...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/143972023-05-19T14:52:52ZTue Madsen
<p>Some ISPs using VLANs for service, require DHCPv4/v6 Frames to be 802.1p priority tagged. <br />pfSense has the option to do this by either:<br />- Setting VLAN priority tagging in the Interface DHCP options (if you are not using Advanced configuration or a predefined configuration file)<br />- If using advanced configuration: By adding “vlan-pcp x” in the advanced modifier options.</p>
<p>BUG:<br />This priority setting in only used in DISCOVER and RELEASE frames sent by dhclient - NOT in RENEW or REBIND.</p>
<p>This is now causing major problems in France where Orange (Major ISP) has upgraded to also requiring the RENEW frames to be properly VLAN Priority tagged.<br />This causes the uplink to stop working when a renew is due. (About once a day)</p>
<p>I don’t know if the issue is the same in DHCPv6</p>
<p>The issue was patched in OPNsense about a month ago, and they decided to drop the advanced options overwrite of the VLAN priority setting in interface DHCP options. <br />Instead they let the user choose if VLAN priority should be used via the interface DHCP VLAN Priority setting already available. <br />If selected it would - apart from adding “vlan-pcp x” to the dhclient config - also set the priority tag in the builtin pffilter rule that passes Interface DHCP client traffic. This adds the tag to RENEW and REBIND frames.</p>
<p>The issue occurs because dhclient uses a bfg interface for DISCOVER and RELEASE - thus respecting the vlan-pcp settings. But for RENEW it uses a simple socket, and that causes it not to be tagged correctly. In pfSense you cannot create a floating match rule to manually tag the traffic that has higher priority than the builtin pass quick rule for the interface DHCP client.</p> pfSense Plus - Feature #14297 (New): Add Option for Vendor Class ID in DHCP Clienthttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/142972023-04-21T15:07:26ZKris Phillips
<p>Some ISPs require a Vendor Class ID be sent (option 60) when requesting DHCP. This can currently be accomplished in pfSense with vendor-class-identifier manually added to a dhcp config file, but adding this as a field would be helpful.</p> pfSense - Feature #13422 (New): Add a 'type' field to the DHCPv6 server Additional BOOTP/DHCP Opt...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/134222022-08-17T09:32:08ZSteve Wheeler
<p>In the IPv4 DHCP server the Additional BOOTP/DHCP Options allow setting the option type. Currently the DHCPv6 server can only create options of type 'text'.<br />All options added there appear in the dhcpv6.conf file as:<br /><pre>
option custom-opt1-0 code 69 = text;
...
option custom-opt1-0 "test";
</pre></p>
<p>Add the type field to the DHCPv6 server as it is for the IPv4 server to allow other types to be added.</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #13096 (Feedback): Improve robustness of Snort Rules Update Log size l...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/130962022-04-25T09:47:09ZBill Meeks
<p>Change the code for truncating the Snort Rules Update Log file when it exceeds the maximum configured size to be more robust by dropping the use of <em>unlink()</em> and use the method used in the Suricata package instead.</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #13095 (Feedback): Snort VRT change in Shared Object Rules path name resul...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/130952022-04-25T09:43:25ZBill Meeks
<p>Apparently the Snort Vulnerability Research Team recently altered part of the path name inside the Snort Rules Update archive. This results in failure of the Snort package code to properly extract and copy the Shared Object (SO) rules when performing the periodic rules update. A portion of the long directory path in the archive was changed from "x86_64" to "x86-64" (replaced the underscore with a dash).</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #12979 (Pull Request Review): Snort Rules Update Process Using Deprecated ...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/129792022-03-23T14:23:01ZBill Meeks
<p>Beginning around the first of March 2022, the Snort rules update package from the Snort VRT changed the subdirectory name for the precompiled Shared Object (SO) rules, in the archive, from "FreeBSD-12" to "FreeBSD-13". The Snort rules update code in the GUI parses the current FreeBSD version from the operating system, so since pfSense is still on FreeBSD 12.3, this results in the rules update code searching for a non-existent "FreeBSD-12" subdirectory in the archive when unpacking it. Until such time as pfSense moves to FreeBSD-13, this logic needs to be changed and the subdirectory name hard-coded to "FreeBSD-13".</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #12924 (New): DNS Resolver WireGuard ACL Inconsistencyhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/129242022-03-09T10:59:57ZKevin Mychal Ong
<p>Initially, I had two pfsense nodes connected via the WireGuard package. My tunnel network was 10.0.3.0/30 for p2p. I then added another pfsense node to make the topology hub and spoke. Naturally, I had to make my tunnel network larger, so I changed the WG interface subnets to /29 instead and proceeded with adding the third node. Everything is working properly except for the fact that the Unbound ACL that's created by WireGuard on the first two nodes did not change from /30 to /29. It says in the description not to touch those but I manually changed them to /29 instead just to make things consistent. However, after restarting the pfsense box, it just goes back to /30.</p> pfSense Docs - Todo #12756 (New): Add information on correct MTU to use with WireGuardhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/127562022-02-04T08:51:57ZViktor Gurov
<p><strong>Page:</strong> <a class="external" href="https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/wireguard-ra.html">https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/wireguard-ra.html</a></p>
<p><strong>Feedback:</strong></p>
<p>In all four Wireguard configuration recepies, there is no mention of changing the MTU and MSS values</p> pfSense - Todo #10199 (New): Improve Spanish translation interfacehttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/101992020-01-22T09:20:34ZAluisco Miguel Ricardo Mastrapa