I select the branch “Testing” and when I click on “Refresh list” nothing happens. 157 does not appear.
This appears in the Log:
Pakfire Configuration
Active Pakfire is working ... Please wait until all operations have completed successfully.
Jun 2 11:38:44 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD ERROR: There was no chance to get the file .1-x86_64/lists/server-list.db from any available server. May be you should run pakfire update to get some new servers.
Jun 2 11:38:44 bs pakfire: DB INFO: packages_list.db is 198 seconds old. - DEBUG: force
Jun 2 11:38:44 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD STARTED: lists/packages_list.db
Jun 2 11:38:44 bs pakfire: MIRROR INFO: 26 servers found in list
Jun 2 11:38:44 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: Host: ftp.yz.yamagata-u.ac.jp (HTTPS) - File: pub/network/security/ipfire/pakfire2/2.25-x86_64/lists/packages_list.db
Jun 2 11:38:46 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: pub/network/security/ipfire/pakfire2/2.25-x86_64/lists/packages_list.db has size of 4937 bytes
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: HTTP-Status-Code: 200 - 200 OK
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: File received. Start checking signature...
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: Signature of packages_list.db is fine.
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD FINISHED: pub/network/security/ipfire/pakfire2/2.25-x86_64/lists/packages_list.db
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: CORE INFO: core-list.db is 198 seconds old. - DEBUG: force
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD STARTED: lists/core-list.db
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: MIRROR INFO: 26 servers found in list
Jun 2 11:38:47 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: Host: mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (HTTPS) - File: ipfire/pakfire2/2.25-x86_64/lists/core-list.db
Jun 2 11:38:48 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: ipfire/pakfire2/2.25-x86_64/lists/core-list.db has size of 903 bytes
Jun 2 11:38:48 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: HTTP-Status-Code: 200 - 200 OK
Jun 2 11:38:48 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: File received. Start checking signature...
Jun 2 11:38:48 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD INFO: Signature of core-list.db is fine.
Jun 2 11:38:48 bs pakfire: DOWNLOAD FINISHED: ipfire/pakfire2/2.25-x86_64/lists/core-list.db
Jun 2 11:38:48 bs pakfire: PAKFIRE INFO: Pakfire has finished. Closing.
[root@bs ~]# pakfire update --force
DOWNLOAD ERROR: There was no chance to get the file "-x86_64/lists/server-list.db" from any available server.
May be you should run "pakfire update" to get some new servers.
packages_list.db 100.00% |=============================>| 4.82 KB
core-list.db 100.00% |=============================>| 903.00 B
[root@bs ~]#
No, I changed it to “Business Secure” instead of “IPFire” since I market the Product as a Service and in this way, when trying to test the 157, it gave me an error. I put it back to “IPFire” and now it works OK.
I would absolutely recommend to not rebrand the product.
You can use IPFire and install it for your customers of course, but I would recommend to be honest with them and let them know what they are buying. The name IPFire has a much better reputation than your own product and I do not think that people buy the “we built this firewall from scratch” argument as many have been using before. Obviously selling IPFire as your own product is illegal.
I would love if IPFire gets more users, but please do not forget that you are building a business like that on the backs of everyone who is contributing to the project. Not giving back is not only unfair, but keeps your product back as it could be much better and more custom to you and your customers if you would sponsor us.
Ok, Michael. Thinking about it like that, you are absolutely right. I will not rename the Product and leave it as IPFire. It was just a test he was doing.
And forgive me if I have offended you. It was not my intention.
I donate what I can. Perhaps it could be more, but here in Bizkaia it is difficult to make a market since in Spain everything related to Security is an expense. Here people spend their quarters on a backup system that soon after implementing it, they stop checking its effectiveness and that is how it goes when there is a disaster and also, at most, an antivirus as cheap as possible not to mention the free versions.
For large companies (which I do not enter, only small ones) already have many boyfriends (SonicWall, Fortinet, WatchGuard, etc …). I am not saying that these UTMs are better, since they may not implement all their characteristics and in the end, they are not better than a well implemented and dimensioned IPFire.
I would like you to consider carrying out a system of annual, biannual or triannual voluntary Certifications of payment (100, 200, 250, 300 or 500 Euros) for people like me, a Freelancer who tries to implement this solution as a Security Service managed and thus, have the certainty of knowing the IPFire Solution well and not because of the clutter and thus obtain a Certificate of “Certified with IPFire” or “IPFire’s Friend” or something similar to put on my website and give certain packaging to the affair.
Other companies do it but they are not volunteers, since if you want to market their Appliances, you have to get certified and pay yes or yes.
This idea could be given a spin. Don’t you think?
For the rest, thank you very much for your invaluable work and help.
This is the same wherever you go. Security just “costs” but never does anything good. With all this ransomware going around now shutting down large corporations for months, hopefully some will learn.
