Search Results

Search found 9235 results on 370 pages for 'social networking'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 128/370 | < Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >

  • Wireless Network Disappearing From Available Networks (Windows 7)

    - by PeteDaMeat
    I have been using Windows 7 with a BT Voyager wireless adapter to connect to my home wireless network for around the last 6 months or so and until recently have experienced no problems. However, over the last couple of days Windows has been unable to connect to the network and the network name is no longer visible in the list of available wireless networks. The only way I have got round the problem is to reboot the NetGear router and to change the SSID to a network name which has not already been used. I do not believe the problem is with the router as my mobile phone can connect to it without any problems. The BT Voyager wireless adapter detects all other available networks so I presume this is a Windows 7 issue as it seems to occur when the PC is rebooted. This problen has happened twice in the last 2 days and is becoming extremely annoying. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Can't telnet to SQL Server

    - by Thiago
    Hi there, I have an SQL Server running on a computer, and I'm trying to access it from another computer in the same local network (potentially VPN, since it's located in a datacenter). The point is that I can't even telnet to the port in which SQL Server is listening. And yes, SQL Server is working, since I can telnet to it from my workstation. I think it's something in the host, since there's no hop between the two computers, but I don't know how to troubleshoot this. Basically I get a connection failed, when I try to telnet. What can cause such problem, since apparently there's no firewall and the server is accepting connections from other computers? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Why won't vyatta allow SMTP through my firewall?

    - by Solignis
    I am setting up a vyatta router on VMware ESXi, But I see to have hit a major snag, I could not get my firewall and NAT to work correctly. I am not sure what was wrong with NAT but it "seems" to be working now. But the firewall is not allowing traffic from my WAN interface (eth0) to my LAN (eth1). I can confirm its the firewall because I disabled all firewall rules and everything worked with just NAT. If put the firewalls (WAN and LAN) back in place nothing can get through to port 25. I am not really sure what the issue could be I am using pretty basic firewall rules, I wrote the rules while looking at the vyatta docs so unless there is something odd with the documentation they "should" be working. Here is my NAT rules so far; vyatta@gateway# show service nat rule 20 { description "Zimbra SNAT #1" outbound-interface eth0 outside-address { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX } source { address 10.0.0.17 } type source } rule 21 { description "Zimbra SMTP #1" destination { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX port 25 } inbound-interface eth0 inside-address { address 10.0.0.17 } protocol tcp type destination } rule 100 { description "Default LAN -> WAN" outbound-interface eth0 outside-address { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX } source { address 10.0.0.0/24 } type source } Then here is my firewall rules, this is where I believe the problem is. vyatta@gateway# show firewall all-ping enable broadcast-ping disable conntrack-expect-table-size 4096 conntrack-hash-size 4096 conntrack-table-size 32768 conntrack-tcp-loose enable ipv6-receive-redirects disable ipv6-src-route disable ip-src-route disable log-martians enable name LAN_in { rule 100 { action accept description "Default LAN -> any" protocol all source { address 10.0.0.0/24 } } } name LAN_out { } name LOCAL { rule 100 { action accept state { established enable } } } name WAN_in { rule 20 { action accept description "Allow SMTP connections to MX01" destination { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX port 25 } protocol tcp } rule 100 { action accept description "Allow established connections back through" state { established enable } } } name WAN_out { } receive-redirects disable send-redirects enable source-validation disable syn-cookies enable SIDENOTE To test for open ports I have using this website, http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/, it showed port 25 as open without the firewall rules and closed with the firewall rules. UPDATE Just to see if the firewall was working properly I made a rule to block SSH from the WAN interface. When I checked for port 22 on my primary WAN address it said it was still open even though I outright blocked the port. Here is the rule I used; rule 21 { action reject destination { address 74.219.80.163 port 22 } protocol tcp } So now I am convinced either I am doing something wrong or the firewall is not working like it should.

    Read the article

  • How to change 802.1x settings for Wireless in Windows XP SP3?

    - by mspoerr
    Hello, I want to configure EAP-TLS with Machine Authentication ONLY for a wireless network. The supplicant is the bulit-in supplicant in Windows XP SP3. I found the following document: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929847 - How to enable computer-only authentication for a 802.1X-based network in Windows Vista, in Windows Server 2008, and in Windows XP Service Pack 3 But unforunately the needed command "netsh wlan" is not available in Windows XP - "Note Windows XP SP3 and earlier versions of Windows XP do not support the netsh wlan command." How can I change the settings without the "netsh wlan" command? Thanks, mspoerr

    Read the article

  • Accessing my Rails webrick behind proxy?

    - by Eki Eqbal
    In my mackbook, when I try to connect to my rails application in office I can't , in the office there are some http proxy , and when I run my rails like this : sudo rails s -p8080 => Booting WEBrick => Rails 3.0.5 application starting in development on http://0.0.0.0:8080 => Call with -d to detach => Ctrl-C to shutdown server [2012-03-20 12:49:34] INFO WEBrick 1.3.1 [2012-03-20 12:49:34] INFO ruby 1.8.7 (2010-01-10) [universal-darwin11.0] [2012-03-20 12:49:34] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start: pid=17439 port=8080 The local IP is : en1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether f8:1e:df:d8:8c:25 inet6 fe80::fa1e:dfff:fed8:8c25%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5 inet 10.21.21.240 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.21.21.255 media: autoselect status: active so when I try in the browser to trigger localhost:8080 or 10.21.21.240:8080 , it seems that I can't trigger my application as for the proxy check out the following : Any Ideas ?

    Read the article

  • Vmware - How do i config a host-only network

    - by nXqd
    The understanding about Host-only: I use VMware 7, Vmnet1 is the host-only adapter for host and it's IP is 192.168.209.1 . I'm really confused about this , does it connect to Vmnet 1 switch and Vmnet has DHCP also, it provieds IP range: Why it has virtual host adapter ( Vmnet 1) has IP which isn't in range while it's just an adapter in virtual network, it connects through switch Vmnet like the guest adapter Waiting for your answers , thanks in advance :)

    Read the article

  • Bradford Dissolvable Agent not completing scan, application unexpectedly stops without error or report

    - by MChandler
    I've been trying to connect to a network that uses the dissolvable agent to scan and OK your computer. The scan gets to around 70% ish, I think the last notification is that it's searching for AVG then closes, without report or notification. I've tried running it in compatibility modes, checking registry, running CCleaner, running as administrator, creating another user account and disconnecting all other HDD's appart from my system drive. I'm running Windows 7 64 bit, and before I joined the network bradford ran fine and gave me the all okay.

    Read the article

  • Can I get ethernet out of my Verizon FIOS set-top box?

    - by Tom Hughes
    Setup: my home network is long & skinny, and the FIOS-connected router is all the way at one of the apartment. At the other end, far away (and a floor higher) is my HD TV, which gets a cable-TV signal from a Verizon set-top box that is coax-connected back to the FIOS on-premises equipment. Wi-Fi won't work, the apartment is too stretched out, with old, thick walls and floors. Goal: I think there are three ways to get ethernet back to where the HD TV is: 1) run a cable! this isn't crazy but isn't cheap either (my building won't let me do it, it involves hiring an electrician because the cable would run partly through the public hallway ceiling) 2) split the coax near the TV and put in... a MoCA device? 3) somehow tease the set-top box, which has an RJ-11 (ethernet) port on the back, to give me network access. Question: any other choices? and, is one choice better than the others? #3 is by far the most desirable because it would involve the least wiring -- but I can't find any resources to help make it happen. #2 is a bit scary, I don't want to degrade service to the TV or anywhere else for that matter.

    Read the article

  • WPA Enterprise Wireless Bridge

    - by prestomation
    I live in college housing at a university with wifi available. unfortunately, my bedroom(where I'd like to place my PC) gets little to no reception. I'd like to place a router in the strongest spot and rebroadcast. I understand this can be done with DD-WRT/etc, but this particular network is WPA Enterprise with my own personal username/password. I can't find any concrete evidence that I can get my router to act as a repeater for this encryption. I don't currently have a router to test it on, otherwise this would be easy, I just don't want to buy a router if it will be worthless to me. Thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • Ip doesn't change when switching networks, although automatic ip is set. Cause of the issue known

    - by Julio Acevedo
    I have two routers at my house. Both of them have DCHP server enabled. One of them is 192.168.1.1 and gives adresses from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.32 The other one is 192.168.1.50 and gives adresses from 192.168.1.51 to 192.168.1.99 The problem is that I only have internet access in one because my ip is 192.168.1.7, and when I switch to the other one, the ip remains 192.168.1.7, even though I have automatically get a ip adress in Ipv4. When I manually change my ip to one in the range allowed by the router, I can browse the internet. Any ideas how to solve this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Pros/cons to turning off cable modem

    - by Jay
    A little off the wall perhaps, but ... I have a cable modem and a router for a wireless home network. Is it a good or a bad idea to turn it off at night and during the day when we're all at work or school? Or should I leave it on 24/7. I was thinking that leaving it on constantly makes me more vulnerable to hackers, not to mention wasting electricity. (Though I'd guess the amount of electricity used by a cable modem and a router is probably pretty trivial. Still, every little bit helps.) When I have turned it off and turned it on again, it takes several minutes for it to go through its little dialog with the cable company and get me connected to the Internet again, which is annoying but not a big deal. Anyone know any good reasons one way or the other?

    Read the article

  • Unable to connect to cable modem when connected to VPN

    - by Spuas
    the scenario is as follows: First I have a cable modem which gives the internet connection. The network is 192.168.0.0/24 and its IP is 192.168.0.1 Second line, I have a router connected to the cable modem. Its "outside" IP is 192.168.0.12. This router creates network 192.168.123.0/24 and its IP there is 192.168.123.254. My computer is wired to the router with IP 192.168.123.126. At this point I am able to access both devices web interfaces by their IPs on a browser (192.168.123.254 for the router and 192.168.0.1 for the cable modem). The problem I have is when I connect to a VPN from the computer. Then I am connected to a second network 10.0.0.0/24 and I get IP 10.0.0.200 (along with 192.168.123.126). I can connect to the router but then I loose connectivity to the cable modem: I cannot acces it through the browser, neither making a ping to it or a tracert. I have tried to add a new route to the windows routes by typing route ADD 192.168.0.1 MASK 255.255.255.0 192.168.123.254 but I cannot access it anyway... Am I missing something on the route adding? Which is the propper way of doing this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is possible to boot on PXE over a WiFi device?

    - by Diogo Rocha
    As I know it is possible to boot up some bootable images (like Linux, Clonezilla, management applications and others) over a PXE (Preboot Execution Environment) server with an Ethernet device (802.3). Can the same thing be done with an Ethernet WiFi (802.11) device? I tested with my notebook but my BIOS appears to not enable booting from WiFi devices. Is it possible with some specific WiFi cards and/or a specific BIOS?

    Read the article

  • Planning home network

    - by gakhov
    I'm planning to setup my home network from scratch and want to ask professional opinions or tips. My home is connected to Internet with a cable connection (100 Mb/s). The devices I would like to connect are VoIP phone (RJ-45), TV (WiFi/LAN), 3 laptops (WiFi), 2 smartphones (WiFi), an iPad (WiFi), a Kindle (WiFi), a network printer and, probably, a home media storage (WiFi/LAN). As you can see, the most load will be on WiFi connections (probably, even if TV supports WiFi it's better to connect it by LAN?). So, I need help to choose the best router (or combination of routers) to support stable connections for all these devices and minimize the total number of routers/adapters. I like how Cisco/Linksys devices were working for me in the past, so preferably (but not obligatorily) I want to setup network with their solutions. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Latency in TCP/IP-over-Ethernet networks

    - by aix
    What resources (books, Web pages etc) would you recommend that: explain the causes of latency in TCP/IP-over-Ethernet networks; mention tools for looking out for things that cause latency (e.g. certain entries in netstat -s); suggest ways to tweak the Linux TCP stack to reduce TCP latency (Nagle, socket buffers etc). The closest I am aware of is this document, but it's rather brief. Alternatively, you're welcome to answer the above questions directly. edit To be clear, the question isn't just about "abnormal" latency, but about latency in general. Additionally, it is specifically about TCP/IP-over-Ethernet and not about other protocols (even if they have better latency characteristics.)

    Read the article

  • Separating two networks

    - by Farhan Ali
    I have two routers, R1 and R2. R1 (a stock linksys router running dd-wrt) is connected to internet and is serving internet to a network of 5 devices/PCs running a DHCP server, with a network of 192.168.1.0/24. R1 also serves internet services to R2. R2 (a ubuntu server 12.04) gets internet from R1. R2 has 3 PCs attached to it, runs a DHCP server with a network of 172.22.22.0/24. My requirement is that the clients on both sides should not talk to each other at all – with the exception that R1 clients may access the R2 router through its IP of 192.168.1.x. At the moment, R2 clients are able to ping R1 clients, which is unacceptable, whereas R1 clients cannot ping R2 clients, which is OK. I believe iptables could be set up but I don't know how.

    Read the article

  • Wifi connected but no data transfer

    - by Anuj
    I have a Desktop which runs on Windows XP and a laptop which runs in Ubuntu. Recently I have set up a wireless router in order to be able to access internet on my laptop through wifi. The laptop connects to the wifi at ease, but is unable to transfer any data. Only when I switch on my laptop for the first time, it is able to transfer some data only for around 2 mins, after which it shows Destination Host unreachable on pinging the router, and everything stops working, but the wifi still shows to be connected. Please help!

    Read the article

  • In Ubuntu, MoBlock makes it take a while to actually start using internet

    - by Matchu
    When connecting to wireless internet in Ubuntu (tested with two different networks), I connect nearly instantly. However, to actually load a page, I need to wait a few minutes, at which point I can actually use a web browser or Pidgin. Until then, various applications try to connect until they time out. I've discovered that, if instead of waiting a few minutes, I open Terminal and run sudo /etc/init.d/blockcontrol stop, everything suddenly is able to load. I can then start MoBlock again with no ill effects. Why is this happening? What is it that would cause MoBlock to take a few minutes to start letting traffic in, but only when started on bootup? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can't connect to wireless-n in dual mode.

    - by Tyllyn
    I recently purchased a Acer Aspire Revo AR3610-U9022. This little nettop uses a Atheros AR5B91 Wireless Network Adapter. I also have a Netgear RangeMax NEXT Wireless Route (model WNDR3300). I have been using this router in dual mode (11G and 11N) on my normal desktop without a problem (Mode: Up to 270Mbps at 5GHz & 54Mbps at 2.4 GHz), but doing this, my Revo won't detect the 11N network as being around... my desktop still does, but the Revo, nope... just the 11G. However, when I switch my router over to just "Up to 270Mbps at 2.4GHz", it kills the 11G entirely, but the Revo recognizes the 11N network. I'm a programmer by trade, and this hardware-y stuff confuses me more than it should. Is there any way that I could set this stuff up so my Revo can connect to the 11N part of my router, but keep the 11G around? :) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Connect a Sitecom WL-174 to another wireless router

    - by Thijs Wouters
    I used to connect via a Sitecom WL-174 directly to ADSL internet. There were some pc's which connected wirelessly and some connected with a wire. Now we got another provider and we need to use the router which came with it. It is also a wireless router. It works perfectly. But I need to connect the other pc's which were connected with a wire previously. Is it possible to connect the Sitecom router wirelessly to the other router? If so, how? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Damn Small Linux - Setting system-wide proxy

    - by ryanfernandes
    I've just installed DSL on virtualbox. The network works fine. However, to connect to the internet, I need to use a proxy with authentication. I can do this in the brower, but I need to allow other command line utilities to access the internet too. Is there a way that I can set a system-wide proxy with authentication information (username/password) on DSL?

    Read the article

  • Windows Explorer slow to open networked computer, fast to navigate once opened

    - by Scott Noyes
    I open Windows Explorer and enter an IP for a computer on my home network (\\192.168.1.101). It takes 30 seconds or more to present a list of the shared folders. It does not appear to be an initial handshaking/authentication thing; even if I allow the view to load and then immediately load the same again, it is always slow. Once they appear, navigating through folders and opening files is fast. Also, navigating directly to a folder (\\192.168.1.101\My Music) is fast, even if it's the first connection since a restart. Using \\computerName instead of the IP address gives exactly the same results. Pings return in 1ms. net view \\computerName (or \ipAddress) returns the list of shared folders fast. This makes me suspect an Explorer issue rather than a network issue. Suspecting that the remote computer was being automatically indexed or something, I went into Tools-Folder Options-View and unchecked "Automatically search for network folders and printers," but that made no difference. De-selecting the "Folders" icon near the address bar makes no difference. Adding the IP address and computer name to the hosts file makes no difference. Both computers involved are laptops running Windows XP. Both have WiFi and cable adapters. Mine is not connected via cable. The result is the same whether the target is plugged in to the cable or not (although the IP address changes - 192.168.1.101 over cable, 192.168.1.103 over WiFi.) We are using DHCP assigned by the router.

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 x64 wired connection problem. IP, gateway, dns assigned, can't ping. Network detected as "Network"

    - by Emil Lerch
    I am having a problem connecting to a specific wired network with my Latitude E6410 laptop. Other wired networks seem to work fine, but this one does not. I have a coworker with me with the same Intel 82577LM Gigabit Network card, and he can connect just fine. I've updated to the latest Intel drivers (11.8.75.0) and am not using Pro Set. I obtain all DHCP information just fine (IP, netmask, DNS server, default gateway). I cannot ping anything (internal or on the Internet - I tried pinging Google's public DNS servers by IP 8.8.8.8), nor can I get answers to any DNS queries through NS Lookup. Windows troubleshooting says everything is fine, but I can't get DNS responses. I've seen issues like this in the past that were related to link speed/duplex autonegotiaion failures, so I've tried manually setting link speed/duplex to all values one by one with no success. My coworker is using all default settings, so he is just using autonegotiate. Any ideas of other things to try?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >