Search Results

Search found 467 results on 19 pages for 'outbound'.

Page 16/19 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

• Debian, 2 NICs load-balancing or agregating with one same gateway

  - by pouney

  Hi, I have one server, with double NICs connected to one switch with the same gateway. Behind the switch we have internet. |Debian| - eth0 - switch - internet - eth1 - same I don't understand how to load-balancing between eth0 and eth1. The inbound/outbound traffic always use eth1. This is the config: # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.248.82 netmask 255.255.255.240 network 192.168.248.80 broadcast 192.168.248.95 gateway 192.168.248.81 allow-hotplug eth1 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.248.83 netmask 255.255.255.240 network 192.168.248.80 broadcast 192.168.248.95 gateway 192.168.248.81 Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.248.80 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.248.80 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.248.81 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.248.81 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Ips aren't real, it's just for the example. Anybody have an idea on correct routing to use eth0 on 192.168.248.82 and eth1 on 192.168.248.83 ? I have many example for multiple gateway but here it's the same. Thanks all. Regards

  Read the article

• "Network Error - 53" while trying to mount NFS share in Windows Server 2008 client

  - by Mike B

  CentOS | Windows 2008 I've got a CentOS 5.5 server running nfsd. On the Windows side, I'm running Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise. I have the "Files Services" server role enabled and both Client for NFS and Server for NFS are on. I'm able to successfully connect/mount to the CentOS NFS share from other linux systems but am experiencing errors connecting to it from Windows. When I try to connect, I get the following: C:\Users\fooadmin>mount -o anon 10.10.10.10:/share/ z: Network Error - 53 Type 'NET HELPMSG 53' for more information. (IP and share name have been changed to protect the innocent :-) ) Additional information: I've verified low-level network connectivity between the Windows client and the NFS server with telnet (to the NFS on TCP/2049) so I know the port is open. I've further confirmed that inbound and outbound firewall ports are present and enabled. I came across a Microsoft tech note that suggested changing the "Provider Order" so "NFS Network" is above other items like Microsoft Windows Network. I changed this and restarted the NFS client - no luck. I've confirmed that the share folder on the NFS server is readable/writable by all (777) I've tried other variations of the mount command like: mount 10.10.10.10:/share/ z: and mount 10.10.10.10:/share z: and mount -o anon mtype=hard \\10.10.10.10:/share * No luck. As per the command output, I tried typing NET HELPMSG 53 but that doesn't tell me much. Just "The network path was not found". I'm lost on how to proceed with troubleshooting. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• iptables -- OK, **now** am I doing it right?

  - by Agvorth

  This is a follow up to a previous question where I asked whether my iptables config is correct. CentOS 5.3 system. Intended result: block everything except ping, ssh, Apache, and SSL. Based on xenoterracide's advice and the other responses to the question (thanks guys), I created this script: # Establish a clean slate iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -F # Flush all rules iptables -X # Delete all chains # Disable routing. Drop packets if they reach the end of the chain. iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Drop all packets with a bad state iptables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # Accept any packets that have something to do with ones we've sent on outbound iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Accept any packets coming or going on localhost (this can be very important) iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Accept ICMP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT # Allow ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow httpd iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSL iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP Now when I list the rules I get... # iptables -L -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 DROP all -- any any anywhere anywhere state INVALID 9 612 ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- any any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ssh 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https 0 0 DROP all -- any any anywhere anywhere Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 5 packets, 644 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination I ran it and I can still log in, so that's good. Anyone notice anything major out of wack?

  Read the article

• dhcp3-server (dhcpd) is tampering with host NIC

  - by user61000

  Hi all, I have a debian box that is serving as a router (using iptables NAT). When first turned on, everything works fine for a few minutes. Then the dhcp server assigns an IP (other than 192.168.0.1) to its' host NIC, eth0. This is NOT what I want. I just want dhcp3-server to listen on eth0, not assign it an IP, and changes the kernel routing table. This of course ruins the NAT capablities of the box. How can I tell the dhcp3-server NOT to do this? Thanks Before dhcp3-server tampers with eth0, the IP is 192.168.0.1, and the routing table looks like this: ~# netstat -r Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Iface 192.168.0.0 * eth0 173.33.220.0 * eth1 default 173.33.220.1 eth1 After dhcp3-server tampers with eth0, the IP is 192.168.0.3, and the routing table looks like this: ~# netstat -r Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Iface 192.168.0.0 * eth0 173.33.220.0 * eth1 default 192.168.0.1 eth0 default 173.33.220.1 eth1 SETUP Outbound NIC is eth1 Internal NIC is eth0 /etc/network/interfaces ... iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 /etc/default/dhcp3-server INTERFACES="eth0"

  Read the article

• ProCurve ACL to prevent a subnet from leaving the switch

  - by kce

  I have a single HP ProCurve 2610 in a remote location that is connected in with the rest of the network via SHDSL. There are two Layer-3 networks on this segment. ACLs are setup to deny one subnet (192.0.2.0/24) from ever being able to leave the switch by virtue of being applied to port attached to the upstream connection. The other subnet should be permitted to freely leave the switch. Both subnets are on the same VLAN. Unfortunately SFlow very clearly show broadcast traffic from 192.0.2.0/24 on the upstream connection. ProCurve ACLs are not my strong suit but I feel like I'm missing something very simple here. ip access-list extended "Filter for Camera Network" deny ip 192.0.2.0 0.0.0.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 log permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 exit interface 24 name "DSL - UPLINK" access-group "Filter for Camera Network" in exit Unless I am mistaken traffic from 192.0.2.0/24 should be dropped as it crosses the uplink port (int 24) whereas all other traffic will be permited by the following default allow rule. What exactly am I missing here? EDIT: Firstly, why do you have two subnets contained in the same VLAN? Because that's how it was configured by a previous administrator and while it makes conceptual sense that a single subnet is "mapped" to a single VLAN there's no technical constraint that I am aware of that makes this have to be the case. Instead of filtering inbound traffic on your uplink, you should be filtering outbound traffic. The HP2600 series can only filter inbound traffic on interfaces. Should I change my filter to deny any to 192.0.2.0/24?

  Read the article

• Setting up vsftpd, hangs on list command

  - by Victor

  I installed vsftpd and configured it. When I try to connect to the ftp server using Transmit, it manages to connect but hangs on Listing "/" Then, I get a message stating: Could not retrieve file listing for “/”. Control connection timed out. Does it have anything to do with my iptables? My rules are as listed: *filter # Allows all loopback (lo0) traffic and drop all traffic to 127/8 that doesn't use lo0 -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT ! -i lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT # Accepts all established inbound connections -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allows all outbound traffic # You can modify this to only allow certain traffic -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT # Allows HTTP and HTTPS connections from anywhere (the normal ports for websites) -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT # Allows SSH connections # # THE -dport NUMBER IS THE SAME ONE YOU SET UP IN THE SSHD_CONFIG FILE # -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW --dport 30000 -j ACCEPT # Allow ping -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT # log iptables denied calls -A INPUT -m limit --limit 5/min -j LOG --log-prefix "iptables denied: " --log-level 7 # Reject all other inbound - default deny unless explicitly allowed policy -A INPUT -j REJECT -A FORWARD -j REJECT COMMIT

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA user authentication options - OpenID, public RSA sig, others?

  - by Ryan

  My organization has a Cisco ASA 5510 which I have made act as a firewall/gateway for one of our offices. Most resources a remote user would come looking for exist inside. I've implemented the usual deal - basic inside networks with outbound NAT, one primary outside interface with some secondary public IPs in the PAT pool for public-facing services, a couple site-to-site IPSec links to other branches, etc. - and I'm working now on VPN. I have the WebVPN (clientless SSL VPN) working and even traversing the site-to-site links. At the moment I'm leaving a legacy OpenVPN AS in place for thick client VPN. What I would like to do is standardize on an authentication method for all VPN then switch to the Cisco's IPSec thick VPN server. I'm trying to figure out what's really possible for authentication for these VPN users (thick client and clientless). My organization uses Google Apps and we already use dotnetopenauth to authenticate users for a couple internal services. I'd like to be able to do the same thing for thin and thick VPN. Alternatively a signature-based solution using RSA public keypairs (ssh-keygen type) would be useful to identify user@hardware. I'm trying to get away from legacy username/password auth especially if it's internal to the Cisco (just another password set to manage and for users to forget). I know I can map against an existing LDAP server but we have LDAP accounts created for only about 10% of the user base (mostly developers for Linux shell access). I guess what I'm looking for is a piece of middleware which appears to the Cisco as an LDAP server but will interface with the user's existing OpenID identity. Nothing I've seen in the Cisco suggests it can do this natively. But RSA public keys would be a runner-up, and much much better than standalone or even LDAP auth. What's really practical here?

  Read the article

• Encrypting peer-to-peer application with iptables and stunnel

  - by Jonathan Oliver

  I'm running legacy applications in which I do not have access to the source code. These components talk to each other using plaintext on a particular port. I would like to be able to secure the communications between the two or more nodes using something like stunnel to facilitate peer-to-peer communication rather than using a more traditional (and centralized) VPN package like OpenVPN, etc. Ideally, the traffic flow would go like this: app@hostA:1234 tries to open a TCP connection to app@hostB:1234. iptables captures and redirects the traffic on port 1234 to stunnel running on hostA at port 5678. stunnel@hostA negotiates and establishes a connection with stunnel@hostB:4567. stunnel@hostB forwards any decrypted traffic to app@hostB:1234. In essence, I'm trying to set this up to where any outbound traffic (generated on the local machine) to port N forwards through stunnel to port N+1, and the receiving side receives on port N+1, decrypts, and forwards to the local application at port N. I'm not particularly concerned about losing the hostA origin IP address/machine identity when stunnel@hostB forwards to app@hostB because the communications payload contains identifying information. The other trick in this is that normally with stunnel you have a client/server architecture. But this application is much more P2P because nodes can come and go dynamically and hard-coding some kind of "connection = hostN:port" in the stunnel configuration won't work.

  Read the article

• Backup files from Linux client to Windows Server

  - by Andrew

  I'm trying to backup my files from my Linux box to my Windows Server 2008 as a push, and when I delete them from my Linux box, they remain on my Windows Server. I've found lots of sources that are similar, but most results were from Windows to Linux. I managed to find slightly more similar cases like Using rsync and cygwin to Sync Files from a Linux Server to a Windows Notebook PC, and rsync from Windows PC to remote Linux server, with the most similar being a backup from Linux to Windows Server, but through a pull from the Windows Server. Initially, I used Unison because I thought having the 2-way capability would come in handy, and I would just have to set some configurations to make it 1-way. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the right configuration, and only managed to synchronize using the command unison "profile" -ui text -auto -silent. When I deleted the files on my Linux box, the files in the Server got deleted too, which of course, isn't what I want. When I tried to find any options for Unison, I only discovered the -force option, which didn't help, since what I wanted was an incremental update to the Server. I found out I could achieve this from using rsync and the -a option (archive), which would keep adding files even if I deleted them from my Linux box. I installed Cygwin on my Windows Server, configured an SSH daemon, but I can't seem to get it working. I've also already configured Windows Firewall to open port 22 (both inbound and outbound). I used the following command from my Linux box: rsync -avrzn /folder/to/be/backed/up/ [email protected]:/cygdrive/c/place/to/store/backed/up/files (a - archive, v - verbose, r - recurse into subdirectories, z - compress, n - dryrun) but it just won't work. Can anyone help me out? I don't mind using either Unison or rsync, as long as it achieves what I want.

  Read the article

• Vyatta masquerade out bridge interface

  - by miquella

  We have set up a Vyatta Core 6.1 gateway on our network with three interfaces: eth0 - 1.1.1.1 - public gateway/router IP (to public upstream router) eth1 - 2.2.2.1/24 - public subnet (connected to a second firewall 2.2.2.2) eth2 - 10.10.0.1/24 - private subnet Our ISP provided the 1.1.1.1 address for us to use as our gateway. The 2.2.2.1 address is so the other firewall (2.2.2.2) can communicate to this gateway which then routes the traffic out through the eth0 interface. Here is our current configuration: interfaces { bridge br100 { address 2.2.2.1/24 } ethernet eth0 { address 1.1.1.1/30 vif 100 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } } ethernet eth1 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } ethernet eth2 { address 10.10.0.1/24 } loopback lo { } } service { nat { rule 100 { outbound-interface eth0 source { address 10.10.0.1/24 } type masquerade } } } With this configuration, it routes everything, but the source address after masquerading is 1.1.1.1, which is correct, because that's the interface it's bound to. But because of some of our requirements here, we need it to source from the 2.2.2.1 address instead (what's the point of paying for a class C public subnet if the only address we can send from is our gateway!?). I've tried binding to br100 instead of eth0, but it doesn't seem to route anything if I do that. I imagine I'm just missing something simple. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Why not block ICMP?

  - by Agvorth

  I think I almost have my iptables setup complete on my CentOS 5.3 system. Here is my script... # Establish a clean slate iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -F # Flush all rules iptables -X # Delete all chains # Disable routing. Drop packets if they reach the end of the chain. iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Drop all packets with a bad state iptables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # Accept any packets that have something to do with ones we've sent on outbound iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Accept any packets coming or going on localhost (this can be very important) iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Accept ICMP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT # Allow ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow httpd iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSL iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP For context, this machine is a Virtual Private Server Web app host. In a previous question, Lee B said that I should "lock down ICMP a bit more." Why not just block it altogether? What would happen if I did that (what bad thing would happen)? If I need to not block ICMP, how could I go about locking it down more?

  Read the article

• openVPN as a way to connect to a LAN by another client, different from server

  - by Einar

  Setup: one LAN handled by a router without a publicly available IP address but without any outbound connection restrictions ("target LAN"); a separate server publicly reachable from the Internet ("gateway"). I am trying to set up openVPN so that a third client can connect to the "gateway" and access the "target LAN". As the router of "target LAN" is not reachable from the Internet directly, it connects to the gateway itself via openVPN as well. The problem is how to handle routing. The LAN router has two network interfaces (for the outside network and the LAN itself). In openVPN (the server on the gateway) I set client-to-client and push "route 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0" but I assume this would be horribly wrong (it actually messed up the routing on the LAN router until I killed openVPN). openVPN is not using bridging, is configured via tun. Other config details from the server server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 client-config-dir ccd route 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 And the client file in ccd is iroute 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 What can be adjusted to ensure that a third client can connect through openVPN and access the LAN mentioned earlier?

  Read the article

• Fortigate restrict traffic through one external IP

  - by Tom O'Connor

  I've got a fortigate 400A at a client's site. They've got a /26 from British Telecom, and we're using 4 of those IPs as a NAT Pool. Is there a way to say that traffic from 172.18.4.40-45 can only ever come out of (and hence go back into) x.x.x.140 as the external IP? We're having some problems with SIP which looks like it's coming out of one, and trying to go back into another. I tried enabling asymmetric routing, didn't work. I tried setting a VIP, but even when I did that, it didn't appear to do anything. Any ideas? I can probably post some firewall snippets if need be.. Tell me what you want to see. SIP ALG config system settings set sip-helper disable set sip-nat-trace disable set sip-tcp-port 5061 set sip-udp-port 5061 set multicast-forward enable end Interesting Sidenote VoIP phones, with no special configuration can register fine to proxy.sipgate.co.uk, which has an IP address of 217.10.79.16. Which is cool. Two phones are using a different provider, whose proxy IP address is 178.255.x.x. These phones can register for outbound, but inbound INVITEs never make it to the phone. Is it possible that the Fortigate is having trouble with 178.255.x.x as it's got a 255 in it? Or am I just imagining things?

  Read the article

• How to determine if my AWS/EC2 server has been compromised / resolution?

  - by ElHaix

  I have recently seen an increase in network in/out activity on my server and am trying to determine if my AWS/EC2 instance has been compromised, and if so, how to resolve? In my security group I have: Inbound: 80 (HTTP) 0.0.0.0/0 Outbound: 80 (HTTP) 0.0.0.0/0 443 (HTTPS) 0.0.0.0/0 Using TCP-UDP Endpoint Viewer: I see a lot of w3wp.exe TCP processes with varying local ports http and numbered, as well as varying remote ports. Some processes go red/yellow/green on updates . I see Remote address for most w3wp processes are my ec2 instance, however I am seeing several to *.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com and *.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com with received bytes varying between 4-11 megs. I also see Ec2Config.exe, remote address: 169.254.169.254 System Process Remote Address: fetcher4-4.p.mail.ru (how can I get rid of this one?!) local port: http remote port: 33432 I am also seeing some system processes from 114.216-244-93-rdns.wowrack.com: Protocol: TCP local port: http remote port: varying As well as some baiduspider "System Process"'s. I'm afraid that my system may have been compromised, and wondering if these results are any indication of that. If so, how can I get eliminate these possible threats? I have MS Security Essentials installed.

  Read the article

• IPTables configuration help

  - by Sam

  I'm after some help with setting up IPTables. Mostly the configuration is working, but regardless of what I try I cannot allow localhost to access the local Apache only (i.e. localhost to access localhost:80 only). Here is my script: !/bin/bash Allow root to access external web and ftp iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 21 --match owner --uid-owner 0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 80 --match owner --uid-owner 0 -j ACCEPT Allow DNS queries iptables -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT Allow in and outbound SSH to/from any server iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -d 0/0 --sport 22 -j ACCEPT Accept ICMP requests iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -s 0/0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p icmp -d 0/0 -j ACCEPT Accept connections from any local machines but disallow localhost access to networked machines iptables -A INPUT -s 10.0.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -d 10.0.1.0/24 -j DROP Drop ALL other traffic iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -d 0/0 -j DROP iptables -A OUTPUT -p udp -d 0/0 -j DROP Now I have tried many permutations and I'm obviously missing everything. I place them above the in/out bound SSH to/from, so it's not the precedence order. If someone could give me the heads up on allowing only the local machine to access the local web server, that'd be great. Cheers guys.

  Read the article

• Splitting an HTTP request into multiple byte-range requests

  - by redpola

  I have arrived at the unusual situation of having two completely independent Internet connections to my home. This has the advantage of redundancy etc but the drawback that both connections max out at about 6Mb/s. So one individual outbound http request is directed by my "intelligent gateway" (TP-LINK ER6120) out over one or the other connection for its lifetime. This works fine over complex web pages and utilises both external connects fine. However, single-http-request downloads are limited to the maximum rate of one of the two connections. So I'm thinking, surely I can setup some kind of proxy server to direct all my http requests to. For each incoming http request, the proxy server will issue multiple byte-range requests for the desired data and manage the reassembly and delivery of that data to the client's request. I can see this has some overhead, and also some edge cases where there will be blocking problems waiting for data. I also imagine webmasters of single-servers would rather I didn't hit them with 8 byte-range requests instead of one request. How can I achieve this http request deconstruct/reconstruction? Or am I just barking mad?

  Read the article

• rDNS for SMTP server locally with Mail hosted by third party

  - by Zleviticus

  Ok We have a difference of opinion on something and wanted to get some expert advice. We host our mail with our main domain "OurDomain.net" with a third part mail provider. We have an in house application that has to be able to send mail out to our clients. The problem is that sometimes the mail is flaky and will stop users from functioning in the program for 30 sec or more and appears to lock up. We have determined that the issue is with the mail piece. One solution is to use Database mail to queue up outbound emails to send out. The other is to set up an intenal SMTP server and send out mail through it. My fear is that we wil not be able to get rDNS to work properly and most of the mail will be blocked by our various client spam filters. Is it possible to set up the DNS for the servers so that we can send mail out like [email protected] using the smtp server in house and still pass the rDNS parameters that are normally set on spam filters? enquiring minds want to know.

  Read the article

• Emails not arriving to client's inbox. Server not on black list.

  - by EBroker

  Hi, I'm sending emails to my clients who are hosted on GoDaddy for both their website and email. For some reason, my system's emails are no longer reaching their inbox. My email server sends them alerts when an action is completed. These alerts are posted in my system and my email server is sending these out, but there are no bounceback emails. There have been no issues in the past year, but in the past two weeks the problem started cropping up. My clients were forced to switched to a web-based email provider like Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo to receive their alerts. This is a temporary solution that works in the interim. I contacted GoDaddy and they are indicating that I am not being blocked. I also have a GoDaddy account and can confirm that my alerts aren't arriving in the inbox regardless of whatever safe sender items I employ in the webmail interface. I even switched all the system's outbound emails to Plain Text, no luck. Can anyone provide some insight and point me in the right direction? Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Allow SFTP in iptables

  - by Kevin Orriss

  I have just purchased a VPS from linode and am going through the setup guide. I have everything running (apache2, php, mysql etc) but I am being denied access via SFTP when using fileZilla to upload a file. Now this is my second time installing the server as I missed a section out the first time. I was able to connect to my server through SFTP on filezilla the first time and the thing I missed out was adding a new user and editing the iptables in the firewall. So it would seem that the guide I have been following has blocked SFTP but allowed SSH. Here is the iptables file: *filter # Allow all loopback (lo0) traffic and drop all traffic to 127/8 that doesn't use lo0 -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT ! -i lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT # Accept all established inbound connections -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow all outbound traffic - you can modify this to only allow certain traffic -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT # Allow HTTP and HTTPS connections from anywhere (the normal ports for websites and SSL). -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSH connections # # The -dport number should be the same port number you set in sshd_config # -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow ping -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT # Log iptables denied calls -A INPUT -m limit --limit 5/min -j LOG --log-prefix "iptables denied: " --log-level 7 # Reject all other inbound - default deny unless explicitly allowed policy -A INPUT -j REJECT -A FORWARD -j REJECT COMMIT All I would like is a line I need to put in there which allows SFTP over port 22. Thank you for reading this.

  Read the article

• Reverse NAT Setup for Hyper-V on Win 2008 R2

  - by sukru

  I'm trying to setup a Linux server behind a Windows Hyper-V host that will help supply some of the services (SSH, HTTPS, etc). However getting RRAS configured for reverse NAT (port forwarding) turned out to be a non trivial task. As a staring point, I tried forwarding port 22 (SSH) to the virtual machine. The virtual machine is on a public interface (i.e.: it also has a visible IP on the same network as the host). On RRAS management console I tried to add a rule, by adding "Local Area Connection" to NAT pool (Public Interface - Enable Nat), and an incoming rule for port 22 - :22. I also tried with the same port enabled on Windows Firewall (and not). The NAT management page tells there are "1 mappings" and "30+ Outbound packets transleted". However all other counters (Inbound packets translated, and respective rejected ones) are always zero. (I'm trying to access the server from an external machine). I can directly access the service if I give the VM's public IP, but not the host's one. Is there a way to enable this on RRAS?

  Read the article

• Configuring iptables rules for HAProxy and others

  - by MLister

  I have the following relevant settings for HAProxy: defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull retries 3 option redispatch maxconn 500 contimeout 5s clitimeout 15s srvtimeout 15s frontend public bind *:80 option http-server-close option http-pretend-keepalive option forwardfor # ACLs ... I have three backends (including a Nginx server) configured in HAProxy, all listening on different ports of 127.0.0.1. And my iptables config is this: *filter # Allows all loopback (lo0) traffic and drop all traffic to 127/8 that doesn't use lo0 -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT # Accepts all established inbound connections -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allows all outbound traffic # You can modify this to only allow certain traffic -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT # Allows HTTP and HTTPS connections from anywhere (the normal ports for websites) -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Allows SSH connections # # THE -dport NUMBER IS THE SAME ONE YOU SET UP IN THE SSHD_CONFIG FILE # -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow ping -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT # log iptables denied calls -A INPUT -m limit --limit 5/min -j LOG --log-prefix "iptables denied: " --log-level 7 # Reject all other inbound - default deny unless explicitly allowed policy -A INPUT -j REJECT -A FORWARD -j REJECT COMMIT My questions are: Would the above iptables config work with the settings/options in my HAProxy config? I am also runnning a postgres and a redis server on the same machine, what settings do I need to adjust for these two to enable them work with iptables?

  Read the article

• SMTP Server setting on Windows 2008 R2

  - by user223298

  I am very very new to this and just trying to configure SMTP virtual server. I have followed a few threads to get it all running, but the mails are not being delivered. What I have done so far - 1) Install SMTP server. 2) SMTP server Properties General Tab - IP address is set to 'All Unassigned'. Access Tab - Authentication is anonymous access. Everything else is left to Default settings. Delivery Tab - Outbound security is anonymous access. In Advance section, entered the domain name in the FQDN field, and localhost in Smart host field. 3) Created an Inbound Rule for SMTP service to allow connections to Port 25. When I try to telnet, everything works up until the point the mail has to be send. Now, the sender's domain is different to the receiver's domain. Not sure if settings have to be changed to allow that? I had set the Relay restrictions on SMTP server, but because I couldn't send the mails, I thought I might as well make it work without the relay first. The error I see while sending the mail is 451 Timeout waiting for client input. I used to get some other error before when I had Relay restrictions on. Can anyone please point me in the right direction? Please let me know if you need more information. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Redirect traffic from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 on port 53 to port 5300 with iptables

  - by Zagorax

  I'm running a local dns server on port 5300 to develop a software. I need my machine to use that dns but I wasn't able to tell /etc/resolv.conf to check on a different port. I searched a bit on google and I didn't find a solution. I set 127.0.0.1 as nameserver on /etc/resolv.conf. This is my whole /etc/resolv.conf: nameserver 127.0.0.1 Could you please tell me how can I redirect outbound traffic on port 53 to another port? I tried the following but it didn't work: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 127.0.0.1:5300 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 127.0.0.1:5300 Here is the output of iptables -t nat -L -v -n (with suggested rules): Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 REDIRECT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:53 redir ports 5300 0 0 REDIRECT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:53 redir ports 5300 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 302 packets, 19213 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 302 packets, 19213 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

  Read the article

• TransactionScope won't work with DB2 provider

  - by Florin

  Hi Everyone, I've been trying to use TransactionScope with a DB2 database (using DB2 .Net provider v 9.0.0.2 and c# 2.0) which SHOULD be supported according to IBM. I have tried all the advice i could find on the IBM forums (such as here) to no avail. I have enabled XA transactions on my XP Sp2 machine, tried also from a Win 2003 Server machine but i consistently get the infamous error: ERROR [58005] [IBM][DB2/NT] SQL0998N Error occurred during transaction or heuristic processing. Reason Code = "16". Subcode = "2-80004005". SQLSTATE=58005 The windows event log says: The XA Transaction Manager attempted to load the XA resource manager DLL. The call to LOADLIBRARY for the XA resource manager DLL failed: DLL=C:\APPS\IBM\DB2v95fp2\SQLLIB\BIN\DB2APP.DLL File=d:\comxp_sp2\com\com1x\dtc\dtc\xatm\src\xarmconn.cpp Line=2467. Also, granted the NETWORK SERVICE user full rights to the folder and dll. Here's the MSDTC startup message MS DTC started with the following settings: Security Configuration (OFF = 0 and ON = 1): Network Administration of Transactions = 0, Network Clients = 0, Inbound Distributed Transactions using Native MSDTC Protocol = 0, Outbound Distributed Transactions using Native MSDTC Protocol = 0, Transaction Internet Protocol (TIP) = 0, XA Transactions = 1 Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks, Florin

  Read the article

• Java / Groovy Socket - Detecting the socket being closed in a non-blocking way

  - by John Arrowwood

  I'm trying to create a small HTTP proxy that can re-write the request/headers as needed to suit my requirements. If one already exists, please, point me to it. Otherwise... I've written something that ALMOST works. It can do the proxy function, but not the re-write (yet). Problem is, I can't detect when the remote socket has been closed down without doing a blocking read. It is CRITICAL for the functionality of this thing that it be able to detect the socket being closed without blocking. I have SCOURED the Java API documentation, and I can't find ANY indication that it is even possible. Here's what I have: while ( this.inbound.isConnected() && this.outbound.isConnected() ) { try { while ( ( available = readFromClient.available() ) != 0 ) { if ( available > 1024 ) available = 1024 bytesRead = readFromClient.read( buffer, 0, available ) writeToServer.write( buffer, 0, bytesRead ) } while ( ( available = readFromServer.available() ) != 0 ) { if ( available > 1024 ) available = 1024 bytesRead = readFromServer.read( buffer, 0, available ) writeToClient.write( buffer, 0, bytesRead ) } } catch (e) { print e } println "Connected: " + this.inbound.isConnected() println "Bound: " + this.inbound.isBound() println "InputShutdown: " + this.inbound.isInputShutdown() println "OutputShutdown: " + this.inbound.isOutputShutdown() print "\n"; Thread.sleep( 10 ) } The tests for the socket being closed never indicate that the socket was closed. And, as I mentioned, I can't find ANY examples of how to detect the 'END OF FILE' condition on the stream without doing a blocking read. There HAS to be a way. Does anyone here know what it is?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >