Phant0m rules 008.8 - bit of problem with updating time

Discussion in 'LnS English Forum' started by act8192, Oct 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. act8192

    act8192 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,274
    Automatic update is from NIST, perfectly legal and the response is blocked.
    Resolve Host: time-a.nist.gov
    IP Address: 129.6.15.28
    NetRange: 129.6.0.0 - 129.6.255.255
    CIDR: 129.6.0.0/16

    Then I enabled (!!) logging of svchost, went manual and tried another NIST I have in the list. That got blocked and failed as well.
    Resolve Host: time.nist.gov
    IP Address: 192.43.244.18
    NetRange: 192.43.244.0 - 192.43.244.255
    CIDR: 192.43.244.0/24

    Finally, starting with U+12 I used windows time server, time.windows.com. That updated just fine. Not sure what the ending blocks are about.
    TimeBlocks.png
     
  2. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Adjust the SPF configuration timeout on the rule UDP: SPF NTP-Req to 2x
     
  3. act8192

    act8192 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,274
    Phant0m, I may be blind, but I don't see anyplace where it says "configuration timeout" on that rule. Please, give me step by step or a screen shot. Thanks.
     
  4. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  5. act8192

    act8192 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,274
    Do you really mean to do something on the Rsp rule, where that section is now shaded out.
    Or, as per your first answer, Req rule? That one now has a value 500 - do I double it to 1000?
     
  6. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Please see my first response.
     
  7. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Hi,

    Yes increase it to 1000 and test, 500ms is pretty strict, I'll be adjusting it higher for the next release.
     
  8. act8192

    act8192 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,274
    Î did it few hours back. Seems to work fine. Thanks!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.