error(s) loading the rule

Started by ricksense, November 24, 2023, 03:13:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
November 24, 2023, 03:13:05 PM Last Edit: November 24, 2023, 03:24:26 PM by ricksense
Hi,

Could anyone please help me make any sense of this error message?

https://imgbox.com/8walW3or



OPNsense is running as a VM in Proxmox (just for practice purpose at the moment), and its WAN port gets an IP from my physical home router (192.168.3.1), which manages my home LAN.
IP 192.168.3.100 is my desktop PC. I set a WAN pass rule for my PC so that it can reach the OPNsense dashboard and devices on the OPNsense LAN side.

Thanks

You need to specify the direction of the rule (in). Also, since your PC is in the WAN subnet, you should disable reply-to.

Not sure how you were able to create a WAN rule without specifying the direction. Or is this a floating rule?

Cheers
Maurice
OPNsense virtual machine images
OPNsense aarch64 firmware repository

Commercial support & engineering available. PM for details (en / de).

Quote from: Maurice on November 25, 2023, 12:15:06 AM
You need to specify the direction of the rule (in). Also, since your PC is in the WAN subnet, you should disable reply-to.

Not sure how you were able to create a WAN rule without specifying the direction. Or is this a floating rule?

It's a simple pass [IN] rule, and reply-to is already disabled:



Thank you

That's odd, the error message clearly shows a rule without direction ("pass quick") and with reply-to set to your home router ("reply-to (vtnet0 192.168.3.1)"). Is this your only rule? You might want to check Firewall: Diagnostics: Statistics: rules for duplicates. Or delete and recreate the rule.
OPNsense virtual machine images
OPNsense aarch64 firmware repository

Commercial support & engineering available. PM for details (en / de).

Quote from: Maurice on November 25, 2023, 06:27:43 PM
That's odd, the error message clearly shows a rule without direction ("pass quick") and with reply-to set to your home router ("reply-to (vtnet0 192.168.3.1)"). Is this your only rule? You might want to check Firewall: Diagnostics: Statistics: rules for duplicates. Or delete and recreate the rule.

Yes, it's odd.
Nothing meaningful in Diagnostics.
Thanks

At first glance it's either missing a validation or setting the proper "in" argument by default, but I'm a bit surprised that either should be required. How can I reproduce this?


Cheers,
Franco