
| Anonymous | Login | 2025-11-01 01:06 EDT | ![]() |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap |
| View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||
| 0000026 | PacketFence 1.6.2 | public | 2006-05-04 06:39 | 2006-05-06 18:14 | ||||
| Reporter | user4 | |||||||
| Assigned To | ||||||||
| Priority | low | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always | |||
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | |||||
| Platform | OS | OS Version | ||||||
| Summary | 0000026: max_enables in conf/violations.conf ambiguous ? | |||||||
| Description | I thought that the max_enables option in conf/violations.conf allowed to specify the number of times the user is allowed to re-enable network access once he has been trapped with a given violation. In particular, if max_enables=1 I though that he would get one second chance (i.e. beeing allowed to re-enable his network access 1 time). Having a look at the violation_close sub, it appears that the violation_count has to be smaller than the max_enables for the network access to be restored (i.e. you have to set max_enables to 2 if you want to give a user a second chance). | |||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | |||||||
| Attached Files | ||||||||
Notes |
|
|
(0000034) user4 2006-05-04 06:39 |
Reminder sent to: user4, dlaporte, kevmcs |
|
(0000053) kevmcs (developer) 2006-05-06 18:14 |
violation.pm should be fixed if ($num <= $max || $max == 0) { and checked in. |
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2006-05-04 06:39 | user4 | New Issue | |
| 2006-05-04 06:39 | user4 | Note Added: 0000034 | |
| 2006-05-06 18:14 | kevmcs | Status | new => closed |
| 2006-05-06 18:14 | kevmcs | Note Added: 0000053 | |
| 2006-05-06 18:14 | kevmcs | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Copyright © 2000 - 2012 MantisBT Group |