Search Results

Search found 1671 results on 67 pages for 'packets'.

Page 26/67 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • Can't ping self

    - by Paddy
    I have a wireless internet connection setup on my Mac. (v10.5.6) Am connected to the internet and everything is running smoothly. I recently discovered a quirky behaviour while setting up apache web server. When i typed in my dynamic ip (http://117.254.149.11/) in the webbrowser to visit my site pages it just timed out. In terminal i tried pinging localhost and it worked. $ ping localhost PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.063 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.056 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.044 ms But if i pinged my ip it would just time out. $ ping 117.254.149.11 PING 117.254.149.11 (117.254.149.11): 56 data bytes ^C --- 117.254.149.11 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss Pinging any other site works though. I am completely stumped. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is 192.168.122.1 a valid IP?

    - by Louise Hoffman
    From my understanding the networks is as follows Class A: 10.0.0.1 - 10.255.255.254 Class B: 172.16.0.1 - 172.16.255.254 Class C: 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.254 But then I look at ifconfig virbr0 on my Linux computer: virbr0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 42:40:99:CB:02:7F inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:16 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:2842 (2.7 KiB) Here the IP address is 192.168.122.1. Is that an allowed IP? And if so, is 192.168 than actually a Class B network?

    Read the article

  • Measuring cumulative network statistics per user or per process

    - by zsimpson
    I've been googling for hours -- Under Linux I want to know the cumulative bytes sent and received by user or by process over all ip protocols. The best I've found in my searches is that it's possible to use iptables to mark packets for a user, for example: iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m owner --uid-owner test -j MARK --set-mark 1 It appears that "tc" can then shape traffic with that but I just want the statistic -- I don't want to shape the traffic. I want something like: "user U has transmitted used XMB since time Y". I can't figure out how to get statistics from these marked packets. Also, I've looked at nethogs but they seem to be measuring the instantaneous flow and I need cumulative counts. Anyone have ideas?

    Read the article

  • Forwarding wifi traffic to wired pc

    - by brydgesk
    I'm trying to play around with Wireshark on my home network, and was wondering if there is a way to create a new connection on my PC that receives all wifi packets on the network. The PC is a wired Windows 7 machine, and I'm using DD-WRT on an Asus RT-N16 router. I'm not trying to hack anything, I have full admin access to the router itself. My searching has led me to articles about client bridges and repeater bridges, but none of them seemed to apply entirely to my situation. I'd like to continue using my standard wifi connection, but make my PC act as a repeater that receives all wifi traffic. Again, the PC has no wireless connection. I've used tcpdump which is installed on the router itself, but I'd be more comfortable analyzing the packets in Windows, as I'm trying to learn Wireshark. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Running a webserver behind a firewall I have no access to

    - by reijin
    I'm having a bad time in my student appartment: I want to run a webserver on my Laptop, which should be reachable from outside of the net. I'm sitting behind some proxy-server that passes outgoing packets to the matching server. But when it comes to incoming messages - it wouldn't route them correctly to my PC. (Seems like packets only get passed if some PC from within the student-flat is already connected to the sending server) In the past I had a small virtual private server that was sending incoming website-requests over a reverse shell to my PC. Which then returned the website content, and the visitor could see my website. Sadly I dont have that server anymore... Do you have any idea that might solve my problem? Greetings, Benedikt

    Read the article

  • Dnsmasq offering IP via DHCP, but nobody is accepting

    - by Matt
    As clients connect the logs light up with DHCPDISCOVER(wlan0) and DHCPOFFER(wlan0) but the IPs being offered are not being accepted. Currently dnsmasq offers IPs on eth1 which works flawlessly. It seems to be just wlan0 that poses this problem for me today. ifconfig of wlan0: wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa inet addr:10.0.0.2 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: fe80::baa3:86ff:fe70:796a/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1609 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:1268 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:308739 (301.5 KiB) TX bytes:319185 (311.7 KiB)

    Read the article

  • FTP not listing files behind firewall (setsockopt (ignored): Permission denied)

    - by KennyDs
    We are developing a Magento application that has a module that works with FTP. Today we deployed this on the testing environment which is setup in the following way: Gateway server which has the following iptables rules: # iptables -L -n -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 2 packets, 130 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 165 13720 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 7 packets, 606 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth1 eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 15 965 ACCEPT all -- eth0 eth1 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 REJECT all -- eth1 eth1 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 126 packets, 31690 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination These are set at runtime via the following bash script: #!/bin/sh PATH=/usr/sbin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin # # delete all existing rules. # iptables -F iptables -t nat -F iptables -t mangle -F iptables -X # Always accept loopback traffic iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Allow established connections, and those not coming from the outside iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the LAN side. iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade. iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward from the outside to the inside. iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth1 -j REJECT # Enable routing. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward The gateway server is connected to the WAN via eth1 and is connected to the internal network via eth0. One of the servers from eth1 has the following problem when trying to list files over ftp: $ ftp -vd myftpserver.com Connected to myftpserver.com 220 Welcome to MY FTP Server ftp: setsockopt: Bad file descriptor Name (myftpserver.com:magento): XXXXXXXX ---> USER XXXXXXXX 331 User XXXXXXXX, password please Password: ---> PASS XXXX 230 Password Ok, User logged in ---> SYST 215 UNIX Type: L8 Remote system type is UNIX. Using binary mode to transfer files. ftp> ls ftp: setsockopt (ignored): Permission denied ---> PORT 192,168,19,15,135,75 421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection When I try listing the files in passive mode, same result. When I run the same command on the gateway server, everything works fine so I believe that the issue is happening because of the iptables rules not forwarding properly. Does anyone have an idea which rule I need to add to make this work?

    Read the article

  • Regression testing for firewall changes

    - by James C
    We have a number of firewalls in place around our organisation and in some cases packets can pass through four levels of firewall limiting the flow TCP traffic. A concept that I'm used to from software testing is regression testing, allowing you to run a test suite against a changed application to verify that the new changes haven't affected any old features. Does anyone have any experience or an offer any solutions to being able to perform the same type of thing with firewall changes and network testing? The problem becomes a lot more complicated because you'd ideally want to be originating (and testing receipt) of packets across many machines.

    Read the article

  • how to change interface ip in ifconfig with /etc/network/interfaces

    - by user2478348
    Hi everybody when modifiying /etc/network/interfaces, saving it and then executing ifconfig i can't see the modification i made..for example here is part of my /etc/network/interfaces: auto wlan1 iface wlan1 inet static address 192.168.0.60 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.0.61 you can see that the IP address of my wlan1 is 192.168.0.60 but when typing ifconfig i have this: wlan1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:19:70:0f:c2:9c inet adr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Masque:255.255.255.0 adr inet6: fe80::219:70ff:fe0f:c29c/64 Scope:Lien UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Packets reçus:758 erreurs:0 :0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:610 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 lg file transmission:1000 Octets reçus:73490 (73.4 KB) Octets transmis:127883 (127.8 KB) (the inet adr:192.168.0.1 and not 198.168.0.60)..if someone can help me I'll be very thankful :)

    Read the article

  • Do two portforward rules translate to "and"?

    - by blsub6
    I just set up an Exchange server to replace my DeskNow mail server. I want to start testing my internet mail exchange of my Exchange server. I can only set the MX records on my DNS up to my one external IP address so I was thinking that I could set up a firewall rule on my internet-facing firewall that port forwarded the smtp packets to two different servers. My question is: If I do that, will that mean that the smtp packets will be forwarded to just the first internal IP on the list? Or does it mean that the packet will be cloned and sent to both IPs?

    Read the article

  • VMware server 2.0 SYN/ACK repeating issues

    - by user65579
    VMWare Server 2.0.0 Build 122956 I am having some issues with connecting into a guest VM (Ubuntu linux 4.4.3-4 lucid) running under VMware 2.0 on a windows server host. All connections to and from the VM's work fine, except for FTP. I thought the issue was the FTP daemon at first but it has been ruled out that it is not the daemon or the server itself. When you try to connect to the FTP server from outside of the host OS it fails with a "421 Service not available" but when you try and connect from the local VM or from the host OS the connection goes through fine. I have ran many packet sniffs using wireshark/tcpdump from the VM, the host OS, and the client connecting, the most informative is the host OS. I have attached a PNG of the relavant packets that were captured. I viewed some other network traffic that was sniffed (WWW specifically) and it seems to do the same syn/ack repeating but the user doesnt see any issues. I have disabled the firewall and the issues persisits, I have tried with specific allow rules to ensure the data is allowed and no changes. It appears like VMware attempts to do the ICMP redirect and it works, but then it vmware repeats the packets sent so you get 3 syn/ack's for every one syn from the client. Also VMWare appears to be attempting to establish an FTP connection between the HOST OS and the GUEST OS, because I see the second SYN sent from the HOST OS to the GUEST to initiate a new connection, and it get the appropriate SYN/ACK followed by an ACK, but the client never sees any of this from its end. EG. syn from client syn/ack from host OS to client syn/ack from guest OS to client syn/ack from host OS to client The same thing happens when the connection reset is attempted, RST's start being sent and repeated, the server responds with a valid header to continue the FTP handshake but the RST acknowledgement is allready issued and things are closed. I am not 100% if this is a bug in VMware or possibly a VMNetwork missconfiguration. Does anyone have any thoughts on where exactly the issue could be, things to try to verify or rule out? I have linked to a picture of the relevant packets sniffed from the host OS. http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7789/vmwareftpconnection.jpg

    Read the article

  • Are there other application layer firewalls like Microfot TMG (ISA) that do advanced http rules?

    - by Bret Fisher
    Since the old days ISA and now TMG have had several great features that I often want to deploy to my customers because of the enhanced functionality and security, but often the cost of an additinal server HW, Windows Server, and TMG license is too much to justify when compaired to a $300-500 appliance. Are there other gateway firewalls that can perform one or more of these application layer features: pre-auth incoming http traffic against AD/LDAP before sending packets to internal server (forms auth or basic creds popup)? read host headers of incoming http traffic (even on https) to a single public IP and route packets to different internal servers based on that host header?

    Read the article

  • IP issue with Heartbeat & DRBD

    - by adam0345
    I'm in the process of setting up 3-node stacked DRBD, and i'm experiencing a rather bizarre issue. Two nodes are located at the data center, and the 3rd node is located locally. The Primary and Secondary nodes are working as expected, however the 3rd node won't connect to the primary. If I ping the IP provided by heartbeat on the 3rd node it will return 100% packet loss, if I reset networking interfaces, ping will then return a few successful packets, but then stop returning any packets. I can't work out any reason why this would be behaving like this. All nodes are running Debian Squeeze, and the latest version of DRBD.

    Read the article

  • route http and ssh traffic normally, everything else via vpn tunnel

    - by Normadize
    I've read quite a bit and am close, I feel, and I'm pulling my hair out ... please help! I have an OpenVPN cliend whose server sets local routes and also changes the default gw (I know I can prevent that with --route-nopull). I'd like to have all outgoing http and ssh traffic via the local gw, and everything else via the vpn. Local IP is 192.168.1.6/24, gw 192.168.1.1. OpenVPN local IP is 10.102.1.6/32, gw 192.168.1.5 OpenVPN server is at {OPENVPN_SERVER_IP} Here's the route table after openvpn connection: # ip route show table main 0.0.0.0/1 via 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 proto static 10.102.1.1 via 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.102.1.6 {OPENVPN_SERVER_IP} via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 128.0.0.0/1 via 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1000 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.6 metric 1 This makes all packets go via to the VPN tunnel except those destined for 192.168.1.0/24. Doing wget -qO- http://echoip.org shows the vpn server's address, as expected, the packets have 10.102.1.6 as source address (the vpn local ip), and are routed via tun0 ... as reported by tcpdump -i tun0 (tcpdump -i eth0 sees none of this traffic). What I tried was: create a 2nd routing table holding the 192.168.1.6/24 routing info (copied from the main table above) add an iptables -t mangle -I PREROUTING rule to mark packets destined for port 80 add an ip rule to match on the mangled packet and point it to the 2nd routing table add an ip rule for to 192.168.1.6 and from 192.168.1.6 to point to the 2nd routing table (though this is superfluous) changed the ipv4 filter validation to none in net.ipv4.conf.tun0.rp_filter=0 and net.ipv4.conf.eth0.rp_filter=0 I also tried an iptables mangle output rule, iptables nat prerouting rule. It still fails and I'm not sure what I'm missing: iptables mangle prerouting: packet still goes via vpn iptables mangle output: packet times out Is it not the case that to achieve what I want, then when doing wget http://echoip.org I should change the packet's source address to 192.168.1.6 before routing it off? But if I do that, the response from the http server would be routed back to 192.168.1.6 and wget would not see it as it is still bound to tun0 (the vpn interface)? Can a kind soul please help? What commands would you execute after the openvpn connects to achieve what I want? Looking forward to hair regrowth ...

    Read the article

  • Download videos from youtube as I see it

    - by Sab
    This may seem a somewhat strange requirement : I want to download youtube videos as I see it. I know that I would have to capture the packets using a program like wireshark , and I do know that this is possible. So lets say I have 3 computers on my network and 1 smartphone. Lets say I view a youtube video on my phone. I now want this video to be recorded on any one of the computers so that I can see it later(record in the sense capture the packets so that I dont have to download it again and waste my bandwidth). Are there any programs which will do this for me? The reason I want this is I use IMediaShare to view youtube videos on my Tv. Now once I see a video if I want to see it at a later point of time I have to download the entire video again.

    Read the article

  • Windows XP/Firewall -- Can't open UDP port 9100 for JetDirect sharing

    - by Barton Chittenden
    I'm setting up my Dad's laptop (Vista) to print to an HP Deskjet printer attached to a Windows XP Desktop box. The XP box is running Windows firewall. Laptop sits on 192.168.1.66, Desktop 192.168.1.65. I set up logging in the firewall, and determined that it is dropping inbound packets on TCP port 9100, used by JetDirect, the printing protocol. I set up an exception on TCP port 9100, allowing access to the local subnet. There's also an entry under the 'allow applications' tab which was marked for the exact printer model. I selected this as well, then tried to print again... I see more dropped packets from 192.168.1.66 to 192.168.1.65 for TCP port 9100. What do I try next?

    Read the article

  • Is visiting HTTPS websites on a public hotspot secure?

    - by Calmarius
    It's often said that HTTPS SSL/TLS connections are encrypted and said to be secure because the communication between the server and me is encrypted (also provides server authentication) so if someone sniffs my packets, they will need zillions of years to decrypt if using brute force in theory. Let's assume I'm on a public wifi and there is a malicious user on the same wifi who sniffs every packet. Now let's assume I'm trying to access my gmail account using this wifi. My browser does a SSL/TLS handshake with the server and gets the keys to use for encryption and decryption. If that malicious user sniffed all my incoming and outgoing packets. Can he calculate the same keys and read my encrypted traffic too or even send encrypted messages to the server in my name?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 R2 - Can't connect RDP over the Internet

    - by Jonathan DeMarks
    I have two networks: Domain and Public, Domain is a VPN connection and Public is the local connection to the network. This is not a domain controller or a DNS/DHCP server. I can connect via RDP from the local network (192.168.1.), from the VPN network (10.1.2.), and from the VPN network over the internet. I cannot connect from the internet (anywhere besides where the server is VPN'd) Wireshark indicates that the server is getting packets, and the audit log is indicating that the packets are being dropped. Advanced Firewall has explicit options to allow RDP, and has no deny policies. I have also tried turning Firewall off completely to no avail. I'm really lost on this one.

    Read the article

  • Web server suddenly stopped working

    - by wezten
    I have a web server, which was working fine. It also was an FTP server and a Windows Remote Desktop server, all working fine. Someone called our ISP to increase the internet speed, and suddenly nothing works - I can connect with Teamviewer, but HTTP, FTP & RD doesn't work. Disabled firewall. Ran Wireshark - the packets don't come through at all. Set the webserver to port 20111, in case the ISP is blocking port 80, and again, the packets didn't come through at all. (localhost:20111 works fine) Port forwarding is set up for ports 80, 21, 3389 & 20111 to 10.0.0.32 (which is the correct address - checked with ipconfig). Restarted router and computer. I would be very grateful for any help.

    Read the article

  • Routing based on source address in Windows Server 2008 R2

    - by rocku
    I'm implementing a direct routing load balanced solution using Windows Server 2008 R2 as back-end server. I've configured a loopback interface with the external IP address. This works, I am receiving packets with the external IP address and respond to them appropriately. However our infrastructure requires that traffic which is being load-balanced should go through a different gateway then any other traffic originating from the server, ie. updates etc. So basicly I need to route packets based on source address (external IP) to another gateway. The built-in Windows 'route' command allows routing based on destination address only. I've tried setting a default gateway on the loopback interface and mangled with weak/strong host send/receive parameters on the interfaces, however this didn't work. Is there any way around this, possibly using third party tools?

    Read the article

  • Troubles doing transparent proxy for virtual machines

    - by Dan H
    Hi iptables gurus. First here is the basic topology: Internet | Gateway | Workstation---eth0---virbr0 | +-----+-----+ | | | vm1 vm2 vm3 I need to test a traffic analyzer running on my workstation, listening on some port (say 8990) on eth0. The rule [I think] I want is "any packets leaving virbr0 going anywhere to port 80 must instead go to port 8990 on eth0". My software running on port 8990 does its own check of the NAT packet mangling to push the packets through after it inspects them. I've been banging my head on this, with different variants of: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i virbr0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT \ --to 10.0.0.10:8990 And I've tried the more generic method of using the mangle table with --set-mark and ip rule add fwmark, but I'm not getting it. I guess what's confusing me is that everything runs on the same box. Thanks for any guidance.

    Read the article

  • Manually forcing TCP connection to retry

    - by Vi.
    I have a TCP connection (SSH session to some computer for example) Network suddenly goes down and drops all packets (disconnected cable, out of range). TCP resends packets again and again, retrying with increasing delays. I see the problem and plug the cable back (or restore network somehow). TCP connection finally successfully resends some packet and continues. The problem is that I need to wait for a some timeout on point 5. I want to use my opened SSH session now and not wait for 5-10 seconds until it finds out that connection is working again. How to force all TCP connections to resend data without delays in GNU/Linux?

    Read the article

  • Unable to change IP address for eth0 without restart in Ubuntu

    - by Rodnower
    I have Ubuntu 12.04.1 installed. I tried to change the IP address of the interface eth0 in /etc/network/interfaces from 192.168.1.3 to 192.168.1.4 auto lo iface lo inet loopback pre-up iptables-restore < /etc/iptables.up.rules auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.4 gateway 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.1.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 sudo service networking status When I issue: sudo service networking restart I get this response: stop: Unknown instance: networking stop/waiting And IP remains 192.168.1.3: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1e:33:71:cd:a4 inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21e:33ff:fe71:cda4/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:3861 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:3291 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:3423285 (3.4 MB) TX bytes:521854 (521.8 KB) Interrupt:45 Base address:0x4000 Only after restart does the IP change. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Manually forcing TCP connection to retry

    - by Vi
    I have a TCP connection (SSH session to some computer for example) Network suddenly goes down and drops all packets (disconnected cable, out of range). TCP resends packets again and again, retrying with increasing delays. I see the problem and plug the cable back (or restore network somehow). TCP connection finally successfully resends some packet and continues. The problem is that I need to wait for a some timeout on point 5. I want to use my opened SSH session now and not wait for 5-10 seconds until it finds out that connection is working again. How to force all TCP connections to resend data without now in GNU/Linux?

    Read the article

  • outlook iptables configuration

    - by mediaexpert
    I've a Debian mail server, but only the outlook users can't be able to download the emails. I've seen a lot of post about some kind of forwarding port configuration, I've tried some commands, but I don't be able to solve this problem, please help me. below INPUT and FORWARD iptables: Chain INPUT (policy DROP 20 packets, 1016 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 60833 16M ACCEPT tcp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:143 state NEW,ESTABLISHED 18970 971K ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp spts:1024:65535 dpt:110 state NEW,ESTABLISHED Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 192.168.0.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:110 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 192.168.1.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:110 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:25 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:110

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >