SJD78 Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Hi there,I posted this in the ideas bank, but then realised that I don't know if it's possible already.Basically, I use pfBlocker to use blocklists from iBlocklist in my pfSense firewall. Using this setup, I can alias the lists and use them in firewall rulesSo, I've configured the 'outbound port' variable in the uTorrent advanced options, and reference that port along with the iBlocklist aliases in firewall rules to stop uTorrent from connecting out to bad IPs.The thing is that as far as I can see from my firewall logs, the uTorrent remote service also uses that outgoing port as it's outbound connection port, so like when using peerblock, the uTorrent remote connection to Amazon's cloud is blocked.Is it possible to make the uTorrent remote service connect on a different outbound port than is suggested in the 'outgoing port' option? That way I specify a different port for that service, and not have it block outbound connections in the firewall...Many thanks all,Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 No it's not currently possible to have different functions use different outgoing ports like you want.However, using iBlocklist blocklists (or any pre-made blocklists for that matter) aren't protecting you from anything except using your internet connection properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJD78 Posted July 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Thanks for your reply. I'm aware of the vast limitations of blocklists, and am under no illusions about their practical limitations in 'protecting' you from anything...This is why I only use it filter traffic to and from my utorrent box, and then only on the actualy utorrent ports and nothing else. That way the rest of my network access the internet 'properly' and uninhibited.Thanks Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Even that doesn't protect you from anything.The false-positive AND false-negative rates on those blocklists are far too high to hide you from anti-p2p groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.