Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: NRPE needs sudo for some plugins

« on: February 11, 2024, 04:49:58 pm »

Please be so kind to take a look at this post:

https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=38742.0

Do you have recommendations regarding firewall rules?

2

General Discussion / NRPE move from package to plugin on 24.1

« on: February 10, 2024, 10:35:36 am »

Dear All,

Before upgrading to 24.1, I did use NRPE via the manually installed package. I had/have a LAN firewall rule pointing port 5666/tcp from the LAN network or address to "This Firewall".

After moving to the package, external calls to NRPE always generate: CHECK_NRPE STATE CRITICAL: Socket timeout after 10 seconds. I do not find relevant log entries on the firewall.

Connecting to NRPE set up to listen on port 5666 address 127.0.0.1 allowing the right hosts and allowing arguments. Two commands (check_users and check_load) are set up in the GUI.

When connecting to the firewall via SSH, everything does look quite good:
- Typing check commands (as root) does work well, for example /usr/local/libexec/nagios/check_users -w 5 -c 10
- /usr/local/etc/nrpe.cfg does contain a configuration matching what is set via the GUI and including nrpe_commands.cfg
- /usr/local/etc/nrpe_commands.cfg has the commands defined in the GUI

Probably the issue is to pick the correct listen address and to define the right firewall rule. Can someone help, please?

Regards,

Michael Schefczyk

3

23.1 Legacy Series / Re: How to get 1:1 NAT working?

« on: June 25, 2023, 10:31:31 am »

This post (thanks!) is most helpful in pointing to NAT reflection checkboxes:

https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=8783.0

The documentation says on nat reflection in the context of port forwarding: "Leave this on the default unless you have a good reason not to." Maybe there is a compelling reason more often

4

23.1 Legacy Series / How to get 1:1 NAT working?

« on: May 14, 2023, 12:53:19 am »

Dear All,

My situation is two SOHO locations with a CARP/HA-firewall with double WAN in each location. In one location, one WAN connection does only provide a single fixed IP with no switching capabilities in the modem/connection device whatsoever. There, I have a pfSense box in front of the CARP/HA-firewall. I would like to migrate that box to OPNSENSE.

The box does basically have three rules:
- 1:1 NAT to expose the virtual IP shared by the HA-firewall members to basically all incoming traffic.
- respond to ping, ideally directly without any forwarding
- redirect one UDP-port to OpenVPN, if that should ever be needed to administer the box.

My bottleneck is the 1:1 NAT. I can get "respond to ping" working. As soon as I enter my 1:1 NAT rule (please see pdf enclosed), responding to ping does stop. However, the 1:1 NAT does work neither.

I am aware that computernala (https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=6860.0) links to instructions that outbound NAT should be set to hybrid. However, I am not certain as to which IP to enter where in the indivudual rules among the outbound rules. I did not find a working combination.

Could someone please be so kind to point me to the right direction? If necessary, probably the target device (192.168.0.2) could execute the ping responses. If the openvpn rule is not possible, I could live with that.

Unfortunately, pfSense rules are no longer importable at OPNSENSE. Hence, I need to start from scratch.

Thanks & regards,

Michael Schefczyk

5

General Discussion / Feature Request QuickAssist

« on: January 30, 2021, 11:13:39 pm »

If I interpret pfSense’s marketing communications correctly, they are implying that emphasis on pfSense CE will be reduced and QuickAssist support will be among the first features reserved to pfSense Plus.

While I very much like both pfSense and OPNsense in terms of the software published, I think that a good strategic response by OPNsense might be to offer QuickAssist support for some relevant platforms (e.g., Xeon D and C3000) to the general public.

The resulting combination of relevant features (faster HA Proxy and VPN cryptography) on one side and less emphasis on the other side might lead to larger portions of the general public / community making informed choices.