f
ну pfSense уже куплен (не мной) за хороший такой бабос
А вернуть ещё можно? Ты не успел ещё распаковать?
Size: a a a
2020 August 10
F
Вы чо тут с утра в понедельник. Это выборы так действуют?
О
подскажите пожалуйста, хочу сделать редирект с определенного домена
сделал 2 server {} в nginx в настройках хоста и в первом прописал
server {
# ports
listen 80;
listen [::]:80;
# domain name
server_name site.com www.site.com;
# Redirect all non-https requests
return 301 https://site.com$request_uri;
}
Но теперь если с зеркала захожу меня кидает на site.ru а как сделать что бы с зеркало не переводило ?
сделал 2 server {} в nginx в настройках хоста и в первом прописал
server {
# ports
listen 80;
listen [::]:80;
# domain name
server_name site.com www.site.com;
# Redirect all non-https requests
return 301 https://site.com$request_uri;
}
Но теперь если с зеркала захожу меня кидает на site.ru а как сделать что бы с зеркало не переводило ?
f
Вы чо тут с утра в понедельник. Это выборы так действуют?
Та так) смешно)
Sf
Вы чо тут с утра в понедельник. Это выборы так действуют?
Танки выключили
T
faq123
А вернуть ещё можно? Ты не успел ещё распаковать?
...чувак, не пугай 😂 всё так плохо с pfSense?
F
...чувак, не пугай 😂 всё так плохо с pfSense?
Могу не дорого продать Iptables
f
...чувак, не пугай 😂 всё так плохо с pfSense?
Нуу, тебе это крутить, я бы софос оставил, раз уже есть, вполне хорошие утм, пфсенс настраивать задолбишся
И
Не сегодня. Выходной. Не хожу к компьютеру. Только плейстейшен, только хардкор
Покажи
Sf
Могу не дорого продать Iptables
Даже не знаю, мож купить
F
Даже не знаю, мож купить
тебе не продам
Sf
Расист!
Mr
подскажите пожалуйста, хочу сделать редирект с определенного домена
сделал 2 server {} в nginx в настройках хоста и в первом прописал
server {
# ports
listen 80;
listen [::]:80;
# domain name
server_name site.com www.site.com;
# Redirect all non-https requests
return 301 https://site.com$request_uri;
}
Но теперь если с зеркала захожу меня кидает на site.ru а как сделать что бы с зеркало не переводило ?
сделал 2 server {} в nginx в настройках хоста и в первом прописал
server {
# ports
listen 80;
listen [::]:80;
# domain name
server_name site.com www.site.com;
# Redirect all non-https requests
return 301 https://site.com$request_uri;
}
Но теперь если с зеркала захожу меня кидает на site.ru а как сделать что бы с зеркало не переводило ?
Не совсем понял какой домен является зеркалом и что там в конфиге
A
Расист!
Собаковод, ибо собаки лучше
Sf
О5 меня хейтят(
pE
faq123
Нуу, тебе это крутить, я бы софос оставил, раз уже есть, вполне хорошие утм, пфсенс настраивать задолбишся
А в чём ещё разница для SOHO?
"
I left pfsense years ago for Sophos SG UTM (the old version). IMHO, The new Sophus UTM (XG) isn't quite fully baked just yet, but is getting close. Have a look at the Sophos forums to see which would be right for you.
Which is better is subject to what you want. If you want a full featured firewall with intrusion detection and application control, Sophos is the way to go. If you want a hot-rod where you control every nut and bolt, go pfsense.
There probably isn't anything that Sophos does that pfsense can't be made to do, but with Sophos, getting something done is one or two mouse clicks. With pfsense, anything other than basic firewall functionality requires lots of research, installing third party packages, then trying to figure out how to make it all play together using probably outdated documentation.
Think of pfsense as a homemade bucket-T roadster with a Chevy 350 engine. Great performance, but the driver's seat is an aluminum lawn chair, and when it rains, you get wet.
Another way to look at it is that Sophos has a task oriented menu system. With pfsense, the web menus are essentially just a front end for the myriad of configuration options that each component requires.
An example of this is creating client access VPN. With Sophos, you enter a few details, click a few buttons, and Sophos builds all of the needed pieces for you including a web portal where clients can download their certificates and client software.
With pfsense, you first have to make pfsense a certificate authority which requires you to configure a dozen options that require a masters degree in certificates to understand. To make matters worse, 90% of those options have reasonable default values that could have been used instead of making the user figure out what needs to go there. Then you have to configure certificates for the users. Then you have to set up the networking. Then you have to set up DHCP. Then you have to get the client cert and the client software to the user.
Last thought: If you decide to go with pfsense, check out OPNSense and research why you might want to choose it instead of pfsense.
" (c) легально стыбзино с Reddit
"
I left pfsense years ago for Sophos SG UTM (the old version). IMHO, The new Sophus UTM (XG) isn't quite fully baked just yet, but is getting close. Have a look at the Sophos forums to see which would be right for you.
Which is better is subject to what you want. If you want a full featured firewall with intrusion detection and application control, Sophos is the way to go. If you want a hot-rod where you control every nut and bolt, go pfsense.
There probably isn't anything that Sophos does that pfsense can't be made to do, but with Sophos, getting something done is one or two mouse clicks. With pfsense, anything other than basic firewall functionality requires lots of research, installing third party packages, then trying to figure out how to make it all play together using probably outdated documentation.
Think of pfsense as a homemade bucket-T roadster with a Chevy 350 engine. Great performance, but the driver's seat is an aluminum lawn chair, and when it rains, you get wet.
Another way to look at it is that Sophos has a task oriented menu system. With pfsense, the web menus are essentially just a front end for the myriad of configuration options that each component requires.
An example of this is creating client access VPN. With Sophos, you enter a few details, click a few buttons, and Sophos builds all of the needed pieces for you including a web portal where clients can download their certificates and client software.
With pfsense, you first have to make pfsense a certificate authority which requires you to configure a dozen options that require a masters degree in certificates to understand. To make matters worse, 90% of those options have reasonable default values that could have been used instead of making the user figure out what needs to go there. Then you have to configure certificates for the users. Then you have to set up the networking. Then you have to set up DHCP. Then you have to get the client cert and the client software to the user.
Last thought: If you decide to go with pfsense, check out OPNSense and research why you might want to choose it instead of pfsense.
" (c) легально стыбзино с Reddit
О
Maxim root31337
Не совсем понял какой домен является зеркалом и что там в конфиге
ну допустим есть домен site.ru, я хочу что бы если я по нему захожу, меня редиректило на хттпс, этого я вроде добился тем конфигом (частью), что выше скинул, то есть сейчас редиректит все окей, НО редиректить стало все, то есть на сайте допустим есть зеркало site2.ru, и зайдя с него я хочу на нем и оставаться, а сейчас меня с него переводит на site.ru
f
А в чём ещё разница для SOHO?
"
I left pfsense years ago for Sophos SG UTM (the old version). IMHO, The new Sophus UTM (XG) isn't quite fully baked just yet, but is getting close. Have a look at the Sophos forums to see which would be right for you.
Which is better is subject to what you want. If you want a full featured firewall with intrusion detection and application control, Sophos is the way to go. If you want a hot-rod where you control every nut and bolt, go pfsense.
There probably isn't anything that Sophos does that pfsense can't be made to do, but with Sophos, getting something done is one or two mouse clicks. With pfsense, anything other than basic firewall functionality requires lots of research, installing third party packages, then trying to figure out how to make it all play together using probably outdated documentation.
Think of pfsense as a homemade bucket-T roadster with a Chevy 350 engine. Great performance, but the driver's seat is an aluminum lawn chair, and when it rains, you get wet.
Another way to look at it is that Sophos has a task oriented menu system. With pfsense, the web menus are essentially just a front end for the myriad of configuration options that each component requires.
An example of this is creating client access VPN. With Sophos, you enter a few details, click a few buttons, and Sophos builds all of the needed pieces for you including a web portal where clients can download their certificates and client software.
With pfsense, you first have to make pfsense a certificate authority which requires you to configure a dozen options that require a masters degree in certificates to understand. To make matters worse, 90% of those options have reasonable default values that could have been used instead of making the user figure out what needs to go there. Then you have to configure certificates for the users. Then you have to set up the networking. Then you have to set up DHCP. Then you have to get the client cert and the client software to the user.
Last thought: If you decide to go with pfsense, check out OPNSense and research why you might want to choose it instead of pfsense.
" (c) легально стыбзино с Reddit
"
I left pfsense years ago for Sophos SG UTM (the old version). IMHO, The new Sophus UTM (XG) isn't quite fully baked just yet, but is getting close. Have a look at the Sophos forums to see which would be right for you.
Which is better is subject to what you want. If you want a full featured firewall with intrusion detection and application control, Sophos is the way to go. If you want a hot-rod where you control every nut and bolt, go pfsense.
There probably isn't anything that Sophos does that pfsense can't be made to do, but with Sophos, getting something done is one or two mouse clicks. With pfsense, anything other than basic firewall functionality requires lots of research, installing third party packages, then trying to figure out how to make it all play together using probably outdated documentation.
Think of pfsense as a homemade bucket-T roadster with a Chevy 350 engine. Great performance, but the driver's seat is an aluminum lawn chair, and when it rains, you get wet.
Another way to look at it is that Sophos has a task oriented menu system. With pfsense, the web menus are essentially just a front end for the myriad of configuration options that each component requires.
An example of this is creating client access VPN. With Sophos, you enter a few details, click a few buttons, and Sophos builds all of the needed pieces for you including a web portal where clients can download their certificates and client software.
With pfsense, you first have to make pfsense a certificate authority which requires you to configure a dozen options that require a masters degree in certificates to understand. To make matters worse, 90% of those options have reasonable default values that could have been used instead of making the user figure out what needs to go there. Then you have to configure certificates for the users. Then you have to set up the networking. Then you have to set up DHCP. Then you have to get the client cert and the client software to the user.
Last thought: If you decide to go with pfsense, check out OPNSense and research why you might want to choose it instead of pfsense.
" (c) легально стыбзино с Reddit
Ну, тогда пусть настраивает и сопутствует ему удача
Mr
ну допустим есть домен site.ru, я хочу что бы если я по нему захожу, меня редиректило на хттпс, этого я вроде добился тем конфигом (частью), что выше скинул, то есть сейчас редиректит все окей, НО редиректить стало все, то есть на сайте допустим есть зеркало site2.ru, и зайдя с него я хочу на нем и оставаться, а сейчас меня с него переводит на site.ru
а site2.ru у тебя как настроенро в nginx? Отдельным доменом и отдельным конфигом? У тебя должно быть два конфига для для каждого домена, путь это будет /etc/nginx/sites-available/site.ru и /etc/nginx/sites-available/site2.ru в кжом конфиге укажи редидекрт на https, но для site.ru это будет return 301 https://rsite.ru$request_uri; а для site2/ru пропиши return 301 https://site2.ru$request_uri;
pE
faq123
Ну, тогда пусть настраивает и сопутствует ему удача
Не-е, ты мне, дураку, объясни, в чём по-твоему заключается разница между Sophus и pfSense.