Search Results

Search found 33223 results on 1329 pages for 'database firewall'.

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 146/1329 | < Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >

  • Web service not accessible from behind corporates firewalls - how come?

    - by Niro
    We run a Saas serving a widget which is embedded in customer websites. The service include static javascript code hosted on amazon S3 and dynamic part hosted on EC2 with Scalr (using scalr name servers). We received some feedback from users behind corporate firewalls that they cant access our service (while they can access the sites including the widget). This does not make sense to me since the service is using normal http calls on port 80 and our URL is quite new without any reason to be banned by firewalls. My questions are: 1. Why is the service is not accessible and what can I do about it? 2. Is it possible that one of the following is blocked by corporate firewalls: Amazon s3, the dynamic IP address provided by amazon, Scalr name servers. Any other possible reasons, way to check them and remedies for this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • iptables secure squid proxy

    - by Lytithwyn
    I have a setup where my incoming internet connection feeds into a squid proxy/caching server, and from there into my local wireless router. On the wan side of the proxy server, I have eth0 with address 208.78.∗∗∗.∗∗∗ On the lan side of the proxy server, I have eth1 with address 192.168.2.1 Traffic from my lan gets forwarded through the proxy transparently to the internet via the following rules. Note that traffic from the squid server itself is also routed through the proxy/cache, and this is on purpose: # iptables forwarding iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -j MASQUERADE # iptables for squid transparent proxy iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.1:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 3128 How can I set up iptables to block any connections made to my server from the outside, while not blocking anything initiated from the inside? I have tried doing: iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j REJECT But this blocks everything. I have also tried reversing the order of those commands in case I got that part wrong, but that didn't help. I guess I don't fully understand everything about iptables. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Force failover a Cisco ASA

    - by user974896
    I have two ASA in a lan state primary\secondary configuration. None of them have "failover active" or "no failover active" in their configuration. Would it be proper to failover in a manner such as: Log into console of primary unit and issue "failover lan state secondary", log into the console of the original secondary unit and issue "failover lan state primary". To fail back simply reverse the process or Log into the console of the primary unit and issue "no failover active", log into the console of the original secondary unit and issue "failover active". To fail back issue "failover active" on the original primary (now secondary) unit, and "no failover active" on the now primary unit. I do not like the second method because it adds configuration directives that were not in place before. Will the first method work?

    Read the article

  • Blocking ports on the public IP assigned to lo interface in GNU/Linux

    - by nixnotwin
    I have setup my Ubuntu server as a router and webserver by following the answer given here. My ISP facing interface eth0 has a private 172.16.x.x/30 ip and my lo interface has a public IP as mentioned in the answer to the question linked above. The setup is working well. The only snag I have experienced is that I could not find a way to block the ports exposed by the public IP on the lo interface. I tried doing iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j DROP, and my server lost connectivity to the public network (internet). I could not ping any public ips. What I want is a way to block ports that are exposed by the public ip on the lo interface. And also I require iptables rules that can expose ports like 80 or openvpn port to the public network.

    Read the article

  • How can I find out if a port is opened or not?

    - by Roman
    I have installed Apache server on my Windows 7 computer. I was able to display the default index.php by typing http://localhost/ in the address line of my browser. However, I am still unable to see this page by typing IP address of my computer (neither locally (from the same computer) no globally (from another computer connected to the Internet)). I was told that I need to open port 80. I did it (in a way described here) but it did not solve the problem. First of all I would like to check which ports are opened and which are not. For example I am not sure that my port 80 was closed before I tried to open. I am also not sure that it is opened after I tried to open it. I tried to run a very simple web server written in Python. For that I used port 81 and it worked! And I did not try to open the port 81. So, it was opened by default. So, if 81 is opened by default, why 80 is not? Or it is? ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. In my httpd.conf file I have "Listen 80". 2. This site tells me that port 80 on my computer is opened. 3. I get different responses if I try http://myip:80 and http://myip:81. In the last case browser (Chrome) writes me that link is broken. In the first case I get: Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. 4. IE writes that "The website declined to show this webpage".

    Read the article

  • Tunneling HTTP traffic from a particular host/port

    - by knoopx
    Hello, I'm trying to figure out how to access from my development machine (Devel) to a third party web service (www.domain.com) which I am not allowed to directly contact using my office IP address. Here's a basic diagram (i'm not allowed to post images...): http://yuml.me/diagram/scruffy/class/%5BDevel%5D-%5BA%5D,%20%5BA%5D-%5BB%5D,%20%5BB%5D-%5Bwww.domain.com%5D The only machine allowed to access that service is B (production server) but I do neither can directly access it from my development machine (Devel). So in order to access the web service I have to ssh into A, and then from A to B to access www.domain.com Is there any way of tunneling traffic from B to A and then back to my development machine so I can directly access www.domain.com without having to ssh into every box? Devel: My development machine. A, B: Linux servers. I own root access on both. B: Production server www.domain.com: Third party HTTP API production server uses.

    Read the article

  • Blocking an IP from connecting

    - by Sam W.
    I have a problem with my Apache webserver where there's and IP than connecting to my server, using alot of connection and wont die which eventually making my webserver timeout. The connection will stay as SYN_SENT state if I check using netstat -netapu I even flush my iptables and use the basic rules and it still doesn't work. The IP will get connected when I start my Apache Basic rules that I use: iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT ! -i lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT iptables -A INPUT -s 89.149.244.117 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -s 89.149.244.117 -j REJECT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -j REJECT The bold part is rule in question. Not sure this is related but tcp_syncookies value is 1. Can someone point out my mistake? Is there a way to block it for good. Thank you

    Read the article

  • What settings need to be changed to allow EC2 instances to use Amazon's Route 53 for DNS?

    - by ks78
    I have a number of Amazon EC2 instances, all running Ubuntu, which I'd like to configure to use Amazon's Route 53. I setup a script, following Shlomo Swidler's article, but ran into script-related issues, which were answered here. Now, I have the script working, but my instances are still not able to access Route 53's DNS. By this I mean, they are not able to resolve hostnames to IP addresses. My instances are currently configured with the DNS server IP address Amazon pushes out to them by default, does that need to be changed when using Route 53? I'm also IP-restricting my instances using the Security Groups. Could that be the problem? Is there a certain IP address or port I should open to allow communication with Route 53? It seems that DNS requests should be originating from my instances so the Security Groups shouldn't be an issue, but I've been wrong before. If anyone has any ideas, I'd really appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Vyatta internet connection + hosted site on same IP

    - by boburob
    Having a small issue setting up a vyatta. The company internet and two different websites are both on the same IP. Server 1 - Has websites hosted on ports 1000 and 3000 and also has a proxy server installed to provide internet connection to the domain Server 2 - Has a website hosted on ports 80 and 433 The vyatta is correctly natting the appropriate traffic to each server, and allowing the proxy to get internet traffic, however I have a problem getting to the websites hosted on these two servers inside the domain. I believe the problem is that the HTTP request is being sent with an IP, eg: 12.34.56.78. The request will reach the website and the server will attempt to send the request back to the IP, however this is the IP of the Vyatta, so it has nowhere else to go. I thought the solution would be something like this: rule 50 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 1000 } inbound-interface eth1 inside-address { address 10.19.2.3 } protocol tcp type destination } But this doesnt seem to do it! UPDATE I changed the rules to the following: rule 50 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 443 } outbound-interface eth1 protocol tcp source { address 10.19.2.3 } type masquerade } rule 51 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 443 } inbound-interface eth1 inside-address { address 10.19.2.2 } protocol tcp type destination } I am now seeing traffic going between the two with Wireshark, but the website will still fail to load.

    Read the article

  • IPtables: DNAT not working

    - by GetFree
    In a CentOS server I have, I want to forward port 8080 to a third-party webserver. So I added this rule: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination thirdparty_server_ip:80 But it doesn't seem to work. In an effort to debug the process, I added these two LOG rules: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --src my_laptop_ip --dport ! 22 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "[_REQUEST_COMING_FROM_CLIENT_] " iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dst thirdparty_server_ip -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "[_REQUEST_BEING_FORWARDED_] " (the --dport ! 22 part is there just to filter out the SSH traffic so that my log file doesn't get flooded) According to this page the mangle/PREROUTING chain is the first one to process incomming packets and the nat/POSTROUTING chain is the last one to process outgoing packets. And since the nat/PREROUTING chain comes in the middle of the other two, the three rules should do this: the rule in mangle/PREROUTING logs the incomming packets the rule in nat/PREROUTING modifies the packets (it changes the dest IP and port) the rule in nat/POSTROUTING logs the modified packets about to be forwarded Although the first rule does log incomming packets comming from my laptop, the third rule doesn't log the packets which are supposed to be modified by the second rule. It does log, however, packets that are produced in the server, hence I know the two LOG rules are working properly. Why are the packets not being forwarded, or at least why are they not being logged by the third rule? PS: there are no more rules than those three. All other chains in all tables are empty and with policy ACCEPT.

    Read the article

  • Persistent TCP connection in DMZ

    - by G33kKahuna
    A vendor is requesting to allow persistent tcp (not port 80) connection between a server in the DMZ and the internal network. I don't have much experience with this setting. Can anyone shed some light on disadvantages of allowing persistent connection? Guidance is much apprciated.

    Read the article

  • Amazon AWS VPN how to open a port?

    - by Victor Piousbox
    I have a VPN with public and private subnets; I am considering only public subnet for now. The node 10.0.0.23, I can ssh into it. Let's say I want to connect to MySQL on the node using its private address: ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-23:/$ mysql -u root -h 10.0.0.23 ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect to MySQL server on '10.0.0.23' (111) ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-23:/$ mysql -u root -h localhost Welcome to the MySQL monitor. Commands end with ; or \g. --- 8< --- snip --- 8< --- mysql> The port 3306 is not reachable if I use the private IP? My security group allows port 3306 inbound from 0.0.0.0/0 AND from 10.0.0.0/24. Outbound, allowed all. The generic setup done by Amazon through their wizard does not work... I add ACL that allows everything for everybody, still does not work. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Exclude minify from CSF/LFD

    - by Patrick Lanfranco
    I have currently installed minify on on of my websites however I am currently getting hammered with email from CSF/LFD. Example: Time: Fri Aug 10 13:10:03 2012 +0700 File: /tmp/minify_builder,index.php_f516d1c7cae9c3881406fd9a0ce69c38 Reason: Script, file extension Owner: -:- (504:501) Action: No action taken What is the best way to have these ignored inside CSF? Some advice would be highyl appreciated. Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • What port does OpenLink ODBC Driver use?

    - by user36737
    I use Avaya Reporting Services and OpenLink ODBC Drivers for db connection. I know that it uses port 5000 for handshaking but after that I believe it uses an random port for communication. I want to deploy my application and it will communicate with the client's system in their datacenter. They are asking what ports should they open on their firewalls. I can't obviously give them a range above 50,000 that I know OpenLink ODBC Drivers use. Can someone tell me what port should I tell my client to open?

    Read the article

  • Snort [PFSense] is configured but not blocking or generating alerts!

    - by Chase Florell
    I've got PFSense V 2.0-RC1 (i386) and I've got the latest version of Snort installed I've loaded up a bunch of rules from Oinkmaster, I've enabled all of the preprocessors, and I've ensured the service is started. When I let it sit for a while and then check my Alerts and Block list, there are no entries. Even when I test it by logging into Skype (skype is listed as a Rule from P2P), I don't get any entries in the logs. If you need any further information, please let me know... I simply can't figure this one out.

    Read the article

  • iptables and snatting to different networks

    - by codingfreak
    linuxbox (p.q.r.t) | | INTERNAL ------ ABCD ----- INTERNET (p.q.r.s) (m.n.o.k) ABCD has 3 interfaces connected to linuxbox, INTERNAL N/W, INTERNET. Linuxbox has a private address (p.q.r.t). At present I am snatting the packets from linuxbox to INTERNET at ABCD. I have a small doubt regarding the FTP from linuxbox since I have to support ftp from linuxbox to both INTERNAL N/W as well as in INTERNET. How can I right a rule in iptables present in ABCD where it can decide if the destination ip-address of ftp server is within INTERNAL N/W or in INTERNET and do natting accordingly.

    Read the article

  • Redirection of outbound UDP port NTP.

    - by pboin
    For my residential service, I changed ISPs to Zoom/Armstrong. Just after that, my NTP daemons stopped working. I dug deep and diagnosed the problem: Unprivileged ports are getting out. When i run 'ntpdate' for example, I go out on a high, unprivleged port, and get a response on UDP 123. That's fine. The 'ntpd' daemon though, expects to go out on 123 and get its reply there as well. This must be a common problem, because it's directly addressed in the NTP troubleshooting guide. Just to see what would happen, I wrote a detailed email to the general support address at Armstrong. They replied almost immediately with a complete technical answer! They have everything <1024 blocked, except for a few ports to support outbound VPN. So, the question: Can I use IPtables to essentially re-write my outbound UDP 123 up to 2123 or something like that? If I do, does there need to be a corresponding 2123-123 rule to translate the reply? This seems like NAT, but with ports, not addresses. True, I could run ntpdate from cron, but that loses all of the adjustment smarts of NTP.

    Read the article

  • VLAN ACLs and when to go Layer 3

    - by wuckachucka
    I want to: a) segment several departments into VLANs with the hopes of restricting access between them completely (Sales never needs to talk to Support's workstations or printers and vice-versa) or b) certain IP addresses and TCP/UDP ports across VLANS -- i.e. permitting the Sales VLAN to access the CRM Web Server in the Server VLAN on port 443 only. Port-wise, I'll need a 48-port switch and another 24-port switch to go with the two existing 24-port Layer 2 switches (Linksys); I'm looking at going with D-Links or HP Procurves as Cisco is out of our price range. Question #1: From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), if the Servers (VLAN10) and Sales (VLAN20) are all on the same 48-port switch (or two stacked 24-port switches), afaik, the switch "knows" what VLANs and ports each device belongs to and will switch packets between them; I can also apply ACLs to restrict access between VLANs at this point. Is this correct? Question #2: Now lets say that Support (VLAN30) is on a different switch (one of the Linksys) switches. I'm assuming I'll need to trunk (tag) switch #2's VLANs across to switch #1, so switch #1 sees switch #2's VLAN30 (and vice-versa). Once Switch #1 can "see" VLAN30, I'm assuming I can then apply ACLs as stated in Question #1. Is this correct? Question #3: Once Switch #1 can see all the VLANs, can I achieve the seemingly "Layer 3" ACL filtering of restricting access to Server VLAN on only certain TCP/UDP ports and IP addresses (say, only permitting 3389 to the Terminal Server, 192.168.10.4/32). I say "seemingly" because some of the Layer 2 switches mention the ability to restrict ports and IP addresses through the ACLs; I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that in order to have Layer 3 ACLs (packet filtering), I'd need to have at least one Layer 3 switch acting as a core router. If my assumptions are incorrect, at which point do you need a Layer 3 switch for inter-VLAN routing vs. inter-VLAN switching? Is it generally only when you need that higher-level packet filtering ability between your departments?

    Read the article

  • How to configure an isa server to allow a OPENvpn client to connect to an outside server?

    - by rmarimon
    I'm trying to configure an ISA server (not really my area of expertise) to allow an openvpn client (in the lan) access to an outside openvpn server (in the wan). The openvpn configuration I'm using has worked everywhere. In fact if I take the client outside the lan where the isa server is located, it works perfectly. Inside the isa server lan nothing. The question is what configuration do I need to put on the isa server to allow openvpn traffic to go through?

    Read the article

  • Web service not accessible from behind corporates firewalls - how come?

    - by Niro
    We run a Saas serving a widget which is embedded in customer websites. The service include static javascript code hosted on amazon S3 and dynamic part hosted on EC2 with Scalr (using scalr name servers). We received some feedback from users behind corporate firewalls that they cant access our service (while they can access the sites including the widget). This does not make sense to me since the service is using normal http calls on port 80 and our URL is quite new without any reason to be banned by firewalls. My questions are: 1. Why is the service is not accessible and what can I do about it? 2. Is it possible that one of the following is blocked by corporate firewalls: Amazon s3, the dynamic IP address provided by amazon, Scalr name servers. Any other possible reasons, way to check them and remedies for this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Recommendation for a non-standard SSL port

    - by onurs
    Hey guys, On our server I have a single IP, and need to host 2 different SSL sites. Sites have different owners so have different SSL certificates, and can't share the same certificate with SAN. So as a last resort I have modified the web application to give the ability to use a specified port for secure pages. For its simple look I used port 200. However I'm worried about some visitors may be unable to see the site because of their firewalls / proxies blocking the port for ssl connections. I heard some people were unable to see the website, a home user and someone from an enterprise company, don't know if this was the reason. So, any recommendations for a non-standard SSL port number (443 is used by the other site) which may work for visitors better than port 200 ? Like 8080 or 8443 perhaps? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 open port 80 inside WLAN

    - by Eduard
    I have an nginx server running on ubuntu 12.04 that serves http through port 80 and https through port 443. Everything works fine if I access it from the same computer via localhost, 127.0.0.1 or the local IP 192.168.0.11. If I try to access the server from another computer in the same VLAN it does not work for http; it works for https. I have changed my nginx configuration to also listen to port 8000 for http; I can then access http from the other computer in the same VLAN via "http://192.168.0.11:8000". I also have a web server running on port 80 on a windows machine and can access it from another device in the same VLAN, therefore the router is not blocking incoming http traffic. The nginx process is run by root. I have used tcpdump and I see that packets are arriving to Ubuntu: 192.168.0.16.49735 192.168.0.11.80 and that some response is being given 192.168.0.11.80 192.168.0.16.49735 (I do not know what the response is though). There is no request arriving at the nginx web server (I have checked the access log). I have iptables empty. I have unsuccessfully tried to find a solution for a long time to this, it has now become a matter of happiness or bitterness :).

    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 | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >