From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "R. W. Rodolico" To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Guardian 2 Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 13:43:25 -0500 Message-ID: <578A804D.1080206@dailydata.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1852628296694041256==" List-Id: --===============1852628296694041256== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I saw the same issue and filed a bug report (https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D11146). When something like this pops up, I generally https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D11146 immediately after the problem shows up; that usually gives some indication of the problem. As Matthias says, it is a permissions issue on the configuration file directory. Either manually create the files (with correct ownership and permission) or change ownership/permission on the directory. Then, you have a nice, pretty GUI. I was able to efficiently block myself from the GUI after that. Since I don't know anything about how to test Snort, I'm having problems getting it to block automatically, but that is another issue. Rod On 07/16/2016 09:19 AM, Mark Coolen wrote: > I'm a bit confused about that. Why would 2.0-002 be newer than 2.0-010? > There's a 2.0-012 under 'old approach' but those files have an older > timestamp. The 2.0-002 is a tarball, but the 2.0-010 is an ipfire > package as are the 'dependancies'. I've used Guardian 2 several times in > the past by just extracting according to the instructions on stevee's > ;--) page, but that doesn't seem to work with the 2.0-002 tarball. I > just get a completely blank page in the GUI. > How do we test? >=20 > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Matthias Fischer > > wrot= e: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Ok, next. >=20 > Am I right assuming that the '2.0-002'-version at > http://people.ipfire.org/~stevee/guardian-2.0/ plus > http://people.ipfire.org/~stevee/guardian-2.0/packages/dependencies/ is > the latest!? >=20 > Best, > Matthias >=20 > On 16.07.2016 04:03, Mark Coolen wrote: > > I'm willing to test it as well. I take it the instructions from > > http://planet.ipfire.org/post/introducing-guardian-2-0-for-ipfire > are still > > good? > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:23 PM, R. W. Rodolico > > wrote: > > > Tell me what I need to do to test Guardian. I've never installed it, > but I am doing it now. >=20 > Rod >=20 > On 07/15/2016 05:00 AM, Michael Tremer wrote: >> Hi guys, >=20 >> even if you have a conversation on the phone, please try keeping us >> in the loop. >=20 >> So the key points of what I know: >=20 >> * A release is targeted for core update 104 >=20 >> * There are a few changes required so that re-blocking a host after >> it has been manually unblocked allows this host the configured >> number of tries again and not only one. >=20 >> * Many more testers are required since feedback is really low at >> this point. >=20 >> Did I get this right? What is the ETA for a set of patches on the >> mailing list? >=20 >> What is the plan to engage more testers? >=20 >> Best, -Michael >=20 >> On Thu, 2016-07-14 at 14:36 +0200, Daniel Weism=C3=BCller wrote: >>> Hi Stevee I know you are very busy and working hard on the this. >>> But if you want to release the new Guardian 2 with Core 104 we >>> still need to do some work and it must be tested! So please tell >>> us something about the new guardian2 and the state of your work. >>> >>> Maybe we find more testers here on the list. >>> >>> Meanwhile I've talked with Michael about the state which I know >>> of the guardian2 and we both go confirm that the list of blocked >>> IPs which runs in the background isn't a good idea. Please let us >>> talk by phone about it again. >>> >>> - Daniel >=20 > >> > > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > _ _ _ ___ _ =20 > )\/,) ___ __ )L, )) __ __ )) __ _ _ > ((`(( ((_( (| ((\ ((__((_)((_)(( (('((\( --=20 Rod Rodolico Daily Data, Inc. POB 140465 Dallas TX 75214-0465 214.827.2170 http://www.dailydata.net --===============1852628296694041256==--