Search Results

Search found 240 results on 10 pages for 'proposal'.

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 3/10 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

  • Nice network diagram editor?

    - by Nicolas Raoul
    Writing a commercial proposal, I want to create a nice graphic showing the clients the architecture I thought of for their IT network, with servers, network connections, firewall, load-balancing, etc. For years I have been using dia, but I am tired of it because: the results are not satisfying, very few network elements are available, and each element's graphic representation is really ugly. Question: How to create nice network diagrams? If a better set of elements was available for dia, that would be a solution.

    Read the article

  • JavaOne 2012: Lessons from Mathematics

    - by darcy
    I was pleased to get notification recently that my bof proposal for Lessons from Mathematics was accepted for JavaOne 2012. This is a bit of a departure from the project-centric JavaOne talks I usually give, but whisps of this kind of material have appeared before. I'm looking forward to presenting material from linear algebra, stochastics, and numerical optimization that have influence my thinking about technical problems in the JDK and elsewhere.

    Read the article

  • Automating release management and CI on python projects under mercurial VCS

    - by ms4py
    I have a set of Python projects which are under the mercurial VCS. I would like to automate the following tasks: Run the test suite for every commit (CI). Make a source distribution for every commit, which has a tag in mercurial. This is regarded as a new release. Copy the distribution to a special repository. There is Jenkins as a proposal for similar questions, but I'm not sure if it can handle the release management like intended.

    Read the article

  • Software engineering project idea feedback [on hold]

    - by Chris Sewell
    I'm a third year student currently undergoing my project/dissertation section of my degree. I have drafted a proposal for my final year project and would appreciate any feedback. The feedback can be anything constructive either specific to this proposal, the area that I will be working and researching in or my ideas. I will accept all input. Aims My aim is to attempt a proof of concept and prototype a runtime-as-a-service (RaaS). This cloud based runtime will allow clients to dynamically offload tasks or create cloud applications. Currently software-as-a-service (SaaS) cloud applications are purpose built and have a predefined scope in which they can assist or serve the client; this scope cannot be changed without physical alteration to the client and server software. With RaaS the client potentially could define any task it wanted at any time depending on its environment variables, the client and server would then communicate parameters and returns for that task. For the client to utilize a RaaS it must be able to conceive and then define a task using an appropriate XML vocabulary. As the scope of the cloud solution is defined by the client at its runtime, the cloud solution only has to exist for as long as the client requires it to as opposed to a client using a dedicated service. Deliverables The crux of the project will require an XML vocabulary in which the client and server will communicate. I’ll prototype the server application that will dynamically create and manage cloud solutions. The solution will be coded using an interpreted language, such as python or javascript, which can evaluate expressions in runtime or a language that can dynamically compile such as C# or Java. As a further proof of concept I will also produce a mock client that offloads tasks to the server. The report will attempt to explain the different flavours of cloud computing solutions including infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS), platform-as-a-service (PaaS) and SaaS including real world examples and where the use of a RaaS could have improved the overall example solution. Disclaimer: I'm not requesting stakeholders in my project nor am I delegating work. Any materials other than feedback, advice or directions will not be utilized.

    Read the article

  • JavaOne 2012 Java Jungle Session!

    - by HecklerMark
    Well, it's official - the proposal I submitted to JavaOne 2012 was accepted! Pending management approval, I'll be leading the following session: Session ID: CON3519 Session Title: Building Hybrid Cloud Apps: Local Databases + The Cloud = Extreme Versatility If you've been struggling with ways to "move to the cloud" without losing the advantages you currently enjoy/require in your current environment, I hope you'll consider signing up for this session. Hope to see you there! Mark

    Read the article

  • When will the Unity Greeter begin to look like the propositions from the Design Team?

    - by Marcappuccino
    The Canonical Design Team gave a rather beautiful login screen mockup for the unity greeter. These designs, in my opinion far exceed the current UI that we have for Quantal (which I think is worse, apart from remote login), and I was led to beleive that these were the official guidelines for the greeter. Are there plans to implement these designs into the Unity Greeter? The proposal is here: https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1ypvxcSmwNKKMZawit-0r6uLnbTxoA-XoyB0ZNCKNMSg/edit?pli=1 The mockups are here: https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/file/d/0BzP7juF4TDpQS3JCWmtHTmR6OVk/edit?pli=1

    Read the article

  • How do I change the software center icon in the launcher?

    - by Andreas
    I'm not a big fan of the Software Center icon (apparently I'm not the only one: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/09/software-centre-icon-proposal). Is there a way change it? The answers to this related question doesn't make it clear whether there is: How to change the Dash icon in the Unity Launcher? As far as I can see the Software Center icon isn't in nautilus /usr/share/unity/5/ so where could it be?

    Read the article

  • Fortigate Remote VPN : no matching gateway for new request

    - by Kedare
    I am trying to configure a Fortigate 60C to act as an IPSec endpoint for remote VPN. I configured it like this : SCR-F0-FGT100C-1 # diagnose vpn ike config vd: root/0 name: SCR-REMOTEVPN serial: 7 version: 1 type: dynamic mode: aggressive dpd: enable retry-count 3 interval 5000ms auth: psk dhgrp: 2 xauth: server-auto xauth-group: VPN-group interface: wan1 distance: 1 priority: 0 phase2s: SCR-REMOTEVPN-PH2 proto 0 src 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:0 dst 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:0 dhgrp 5 replay keep-alive dhcp policies: none Here is the configuration: config vpn ipsec phase1-interface edit "SCR-REMOTEVPN" set type dynamic set interface "wan1" set dhgrp 2 set xauthtype auto set mode aggressive set proposal aes256-sha1 aes256-md5 set authusrgrp "VPN-group" set psksecret ENC xxx next config vpn ipsec phase2-interface edit "SCR-REMOTEVPN-PH2" set keepalive enable set phase1name "SCR-REMOTEVPN" set proposal aes256-sha1 aes256-md5 set dhcp-ipsec enable next end But when I try to connect from a remote device (I tested with an Android Phone), the phone fail to connect and the fortinet return this error : 2012-07-20 13:08:51 log_id=0101037124 type=event subtype=ipsec pri=error vd="root" msg="IPsec phase 1 error" action="negotiate" rem_ip=xxx loc_ip=xxx rem_port=1049 loc_port=500 out_intf="wan1" cookies="xxx" user="N/A" group="N/A" xauth_user="N/A" xauth_group="N/A" vpn_tunnel="N/A" status=negotiate_error error_reason=no matching gateway for new request peer_notif=INITIAL-CONTACT I tried searching on the web, but i did not find anything revelant to this. Do you have any idea of what can be the problem ? I tried many combinaisons of settings on the fortigate without success..

    Read the article

  • Can I attach a VPN firewall to an existing network and have it manage VPN connections?

    - by jules
    I'm quite new to networking and am trying to set up my first VPN connection. The Situation: I have been contracted for some programming at a facility some distance from my location. I would like to be able to set up a simple VPN connection to their network so that I may make adjustments without significant travel. Their Current Network: Six devices (one I need to connect to) plugged into a basic router (Dlink). This router has an internet connection and a static ip address. My Hopeful (questionable) Proposal: I attach a VPN Firewall I happen to own (Netgear FVS318) as device number seven on the client network. I disable routing / DHCP in the Netgear. I forward the appropriate IPSec ports from the Dlink to the Netgear. I then create a VPN connection on my office Windows 7 machine to the remote network. The request is forwarded from the Dlink to the Netgear where the VPN connection is authenticated. I now have a remote-access connection from my office PC to the client's local network. The Question: Will this proposal work? If not, would another possibility be to attach a computer with a VPN server to the client network? Also, as a note: the client has requested I not replace their router or place mine in-between theirs and the internet :( Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • Cisco ASA Site-to-Site VPN Dropping

    - by ScottAdair
    I have three sites, Toronto (1.1.1.1), Mississauga (2.2.2.2) and San Francisco (3.3.3.3). All three sites have ASA 5520. All the sites are connected together with two site-to-site VPN links between each other location. My issue is that the tunnel between Toronto and San Francisco is very unstable, dropping every 40 min to 60 mins. The tunnel between Toronto and Mississauga (which is configured in the same manner) is fine with no drops. I also noticed that my pings with drop but the ASA thinks that the tunnel is still up and running. Here is the configuration of the tunnel. Toronto (1.1.1.1) crypto map Outside_map 1 match address Outside_cryptomap crypto map Outside_map 1 set peer 3.3.3.3 crypto map Outside_map 1 set ikev1 transform-set ESP-AES-256-MD5 ESP-AES-256-SHA crypto map Outside_map 1 set ikev2 ipsec-proposal AES256 group-policy GroupPolicy_3.3.3.3 internal group-policy GroupPolicy_3.3.3.3 attributes vpn-idle-timeout none vpn-tunnel-protocol ikev1 ikev2 tunnel-group 3.3.3.3 type ipsec-l2l tunnel-group 3.3.3.3 general-attributes default-group-policy GroupPolicy_3.3.3.3 tunnel-group 3.3.3.3 ipsec-attributes ikev1 pre-shared-key ***** isakmp keepalive disable ikev2 remote-authentication pre-shared-key ***** ikev2 local-authentication pre-shared-key ***** San Francisco (3.3.3.3) crypto map Outside_map0 2 match address Outside_cryptomap_1 crypto map Outside_map0 2 set peer 1.1.1.1 crypto map Outside_map0 2 set ikev1 transform-set ESP-AES-256-MD5 ESP-AES-256-SHA crypto map Outside_map0 2 set ikev2 ipsec-proposal AES256 group-policy GroupPolicy_1.1.1.1 internal group-policy GroupPolicy_1.1.1.1 attributes vpn-idle-timeout none vpn-tunnel-protocol ikev1 ikev2 tunnel-group 1.1.1.1 type ipsec-l2l tunnel-group 1.1.1.1 general-attributes default-group-policy GroupPolicy_1.1.1.1 tunnel-group 1.1.1.1 ipsec-attributes ikev1 pre-shared-key ***** isakmp keepalive disable ikev2 remote-authentication pre-shared-key ***** ikev2 local-authentication pre-shared-key ***** I'm at a loss. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • help setting up an IPSEC vpn from my linux box

    - by robthewolf
    I have an office with a router and a remote server (Linux - Ubuntu 10.10). Both locations need to connect to a data supplier through a VPN. The VPN is an IPSEC gateway. I was able to configure my Linksys rv42 router to create a VPN connection successfully and now I need to do the same for Linux server. I have been messing around with this for too long. First I tried OpenVPN, but that is SSL and not IPSEC. Then I tried Shrew. I think I have the settings correct but I haven't been able to create the connection. It maybe that I have to use something else like a direct IPSEC config or something like that. If someone knows of a way to turn the following settings that I have been given below into a working IPSEC VPN connection I would be very grateful. Here are the settings I was given that must be used to connect to my supplier: Local destination network: 192.168.4.0/24 Local destination hosts: 192.168.4.100 Remote destination network: 192.167.40.0/24 Remote destination hosts: 192.168.40.27 VPN peering point: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx Then they have given me the following details: IPSEC/ISAKMP Phase 1 Parameters: Authentication method: pre shared secret Diffie Hellman group: group 2 Encryption Algorithm: 3DES Lifetime in seconds:28800 Phase 2 parameters: IPSEC security: ESP Encryption algortims: 3DES Authentication algorithms: MD5 lifetime in seconds: 28800 pfs: disabled Here are the settings from my attempt to use shrew: n:version:2 n:network-ike-port:500 n:network-mtu-size:1380 n:client-addr-auto:0 n:network-frag-size:540 n:network-dpd-enable:1 n:network-notify-enable:1 n:client-banner-enable:1 n:client-dns-used:1 b:auth-mutual-psk:YjJzN2QzdDhyN2EyZDNpNG42ZzQ= n:phase1-dhgroup:2 n:phase1-keylen:0 n:phase1-life-secs:28800 n:phase1-life-kbytes:0 n:vendor-chkpt-enable:0 n:phase2-keylen:0 n:phase2-pfsgroup:-1 n:phase2-life-secs:28800 n:phase2-life-kbytes:0 n:policy-nailed:0 n:policy-list-auto:1 n:client-dns-auto:1 n:network-natt-port:4500 n:network-natt-rate:15 s:client-dns-addr:0.0.0.0 s:client-dns-suffix: s:network-host:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx s:client-auto-mode:pull s:client-iface:virtual s:client-ip-addr:192.168.4.0 s:client-ip-mask:255.255.255.0 s:network-natt-mode:enable s:network-frag-mode:disable s:auth-method:mutual-psk s:ident-client-type:address s:ident-client-data:192.168.4.0 s:ident-server-type:address s:ident-server-data:192.168.40.0 s:phase1-exchange:aggressive s:phase1-cipher:3des s:phase1-hash:md5 s:phase2-transform:3des s:phase2-hmac:md5 s:ipcomp-transform:disabled Finally here is the debug output from the shrew log: 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : ipc client process thread begin ... 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : peer config add message 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : peer added ( obj count = 1 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local address 217.xxx.xxx.xxx selected for peer 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : tunnel added ( obj count = 1 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : proposal config message 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : proposal config message 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : client config message 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : local id '192.168.4.0' message 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : remote id '192.168.40.0' message 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : preshared key message 10/12/22 17:22:18 < A : peer tunnel enable message 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : new phase1 ( ISAKMP initiator ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : exchange type is aggressive 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : 217.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 <- 206.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : c1a8b31ac860995d:0000000000000000 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : phase1 added ( obj count = 1 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 : security association payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 : - proposal #1 payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 : -- transform #1 payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 : key exchange payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 : nonce payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 : identification payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local supports nat-t ( draft v00 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local supports nat-t ( draft v01 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local supports nat-t ( draft v02 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local supports nat-t ( draft v03 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local supports nat-t ( rfc ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local supports DPDv1 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local is SHREW SOFT compatible 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local is NETSCREEN compatible 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local is SIDEWINDER compatible 10/12/22 17:22:18 : vendor id payload 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : local is CISCO UNITY compatible 10/12/22 17:22:18 = : cookies c1a8b31ac860995d:0000000000000000 10/12/22 17:22:18 = : message 00000000 10/12/22 17:22:18 - : send IKE packet 217.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 - 206.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 ( 484 bytes ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 DB : phase1 resend event scheduled ( ref count = 2 ) 10/12/22 17:22:18 ii : opened tap device tap0 10/12/22 17:22:28 - : resend 1 phase1 packet(s) 217.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 - 206.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 10/12/22 17:22:38 - : resend 1 phase1 packet(s) 217.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 - 206.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 10/12/22 17:22:48 - : resend 1 phase1 packet(s) 217.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 - 206.xxx.xxx.xxx:500 10/12/22 17:22:58 ii : resend limit exceeded for phase1 exchange 10/12/22 17:22:58 ii : phase1 removal before expire time 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : phase1 deleted ( obj count = 0 ) 10/12/22 17:22:58 ii : closed tap device tap0 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : tunnel stats event canceled ( ref count = 1 ) 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : removing tunnel config references 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : removing tunnel phase2 references 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : removing tunnel phase1 references 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : tunnel deleted ( obj count = 0 ) 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : removing all peer tunnel refrences 10/12/22 17:22:58 DB : peer deleted ( obj count = 0 ) 10/12/22 17:22:58 ii : ipc client process thread exit ...

    Read the article

  • Standards Corner: OAuth WG Client Registration Problem

    - by Tanu Sood
    Phil Hunt is an active member of multiple industry standards groups and committees (see brief bio at the end of the post) and has spearheaded discussions, creation and ratifications of  Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii- mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi- mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} industry standards including the Kantara Identity Governance Framework, among others. Being an active voice in the industry standards development world, we have invited him to share his discussions, thoughts, news & updates, and discuss use cases, implementation success stories (and even failures) around industry standards on this monthly column. Author: Phil Hunt This afternoon, the OAuth Working Group will meet at IETF88 in Vancouver to discuss some important topics important to the maturation of OAuth. One of them is the OAuth client registration problem.OAuth (RFC6749) was initially developed with a simple deployment model where there is only monopoly or singleton cloud instance of a web API (e.g. there is one Facebook, one Google, on LinkedIn, and so on). When the API publisher and API deployer are the same monolithic entity, it easy for developers to contact the provider and register their app to obtain a client_id and credential.But what happens when the API is for an open source project where there may be 1000s of deployed copies of the API (e.g. such as wordpress). In these cases, the authors of the API are not the people running the API. In these scenarios, how does the developer obtain a client_id? An example of an "open deployed" API is OpenID Connect. Connect defines an OAuth protected resource API that can provide personal information about an authenticated user -- in effect creating a potentially common API for potential identity providers like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, or Oracle. In Oracle's case, Fusion applications will soon have RESTful APIs that are deployed in many different ways in many different environments. How will developers write apps that can work against an openly deployed API with whom the developer can have no prior relationship?At present, the OAuth Working Group has two proposals two consider: Dynamic RegistrationDynamic Registration was originally developed for OpenID Connect and UMA. It defines a RESTful API in which a prospective client application with no client_id creates a new client registration record with a service provider and is issued a client_id and credential along with a registration token that can be used to update registration over time.As proof of success, the OIDC community has done substantial implementation of this spec and feels committed to its use. Why not approve?Well, the answer is that some of us had some concerns, namely: Recognizing instances of software - dynamic registration treats all clients as unique. It has no defined way to recognize that multiple copies of the same client are being registered other then assuming if the registration parameters are similar it might be the same client. Versioning and Policy Approval of open APIs and clients - many service providers have to worry about change management. They expect to have approval cycles that approve versions of server and client software for use in their environment. In some cases approval might be wide open, but in many cases, approval might be down to the specific class of software and version. Registration updates - when does a client actually need to update its registration? Shouldn't it be never? Is there some characteristic of deployed code that would cause it to change? Options lead to complexity - because each client is treated as unique, it becomes unclear how the clients and servers will agree on what credentials forms are acceptable and what OAuth features are allowed and disallowed. Yet the reality is, developers will write their application to work in a limited number of ways. They can't implement all the permutations and combinations that potential service providers might choose. Stateful registration - if the primary motivation for registration is to obtain a client_id and credential, why can't this be done in a stateless fashion using assertions? Denial of service - With so much stateful registration and the need for multiple tokens to be issued, will this not lead to a denial of service attack / risk of resource depletion? At the very least, because of the information gathered, it would difficult for service providers to clean up "failed" registrations and determine active from inactive or false clients. There has yet to be much wide-scale "production" use of dynamic registration other than in small closed communities. Client Association A second proposal, Client Association, has been put forward by Tony Nadalin of Microsoft and myself. We took at look at existing use patterns to come up with a new proposal. At the Berlin meeting, we considered how WS-STS systems work. More recently, I took a review of how mobile messaging clients work. I looked at how Apple, Google, and Microsoft each handle registration with APNS, GCM, and WNS, and a similar pattern emerges. This pattern is to use an existing credential (mutual TLS auth), or client bearer assertion and swap for a device specific bearer assertion.In the client association proposal, the developer's registration with the API publisher is handled by having the developer register with an API publisher (as opposed to the party deploying the API) and obtaining a software "statement". Or, if there is no "publisher" that can sign a statement, the developer may include their own self-asserted software statement.A software statement is a special type of assertion that serves to lock application registration profile information in a signed assertion. The statement is included with the client application and can then be used by the client to swap for an instance specific client assertion as defined by section 4.2 of the OAuth Assertion draft and profiled in the Client Association draft. The software statement provides a way for service provider to recognize and configure policy to approve classes of software clients, and simplifies the actual registration to a simple assertion swap. Because the registration is an assertion swap, registration is no longer "stateful" - meaning the service provider does not need to store any information to support the client (unless it wants to). Has this been implemented yet? Not directly. We've only delivered draft 00 as an alternate way of solving the problem using well-known patterns whose security characteristics and scale characteristics are well understood. Dynamic Take II At roughly the same time that Client Association and Software Statement were published, the authors of Dynamic Registration published a "split" version of the Dynamic Registration (draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-core and draft-richer-oauth-dyn-reg-management). While some of the concerns above are addressed, some differences remain. Registration is now a simple POST request. However it defines a new method for issuing client tokens where as Client Association uses RFC6749's existing extension point. The concern here is whether future client access token formats would be addressed properly. Finally, Dyn-reg-core does not yet support software statements. Conclusion The WG has some interesting discussion to bring this back to a single set of specifications. Dynamic Registration has significant implementation, but Client Association could be a much improved way to simplify implementation of the overall OpenID Connect specification and improve adoption. In fairness, the existing editors have already come a long way. Yet there are those with significant investment in the current draft. There are many that have expressed they don't care. They just want a standard. There is lots of pressure on the working group to reach consensus quickly.And that folks is how the sausage is made.Note: John Bradley and Justin Richer recently published draft-bradley-stateless-oauth-client-00 which on first look are getting closer. Some of the details seem less well defined, but the same could be said of client-assoc and software-statement. I hope we can merge these specs this week. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii- mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi- mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} About the Writer: Phil Hunt joined Oracle as part of the November 2005 acquisition of OctetString Inc. where he headed software development for what is now Oracle Virtual Directory. Since joining Oracle, Phil works as CMTS in the Identity Standards group at Oracle where he developed the Kantara Identity Governance Framework and provided significant input to JSR 351. Phil participates in several standards development organizations such as IETF and OASIS working on federation, authorization (OAuth), and provisioning (SCIM) standards.  Phil blogs at www.independentid.com and a Twitter handle of @independentid.

    Read the article

  • IPsec tunnel to Android device not created even though there is an IKE SA

    - by Quentin Swain
    I'm trying to configure a VPN tunnel between an Android device running 4.1 and a Fedora 17 Linux box running strongSwan 5.0. The device reports that it is connected and strongSwan statusall returns that there is an IKE SA, but doesn't display a tunnel. I used the instructions for iOS in the wiki to generate certificates and configure strongSwan. Since Android uses a modified version of racoon this should work and since the connection is partly established I think I am on the right track. I don't see any errors about not being able to create the tunnel. This is the configuration for the strongSwan connection conn android2 keyexchange=ikev1 authby=xauthrsasig xauth=server left=96.244.142.28 leftsubnet=0.0.0.0/0 leftfirewall=yes leftcert=serverCert.pem right=%any rightsubnet=10.0.0.0/24 rightsourceip=10.0.0.2 rightcert=clientCert.pem ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024 auto=add This is the output of strongswan statusall Status of IKE charon daemon (strongSwan 5.0.0, Linux 3.3.4-5.fc17.x86_64, x86_64): uptime: 20 minutes, since Oct 31 10:27:31 2012 malloc: sbrk 270336, mmap 0, used 198144, free 72192 worker threads: 8 of 16 idle, 7/1/0/0 working, job queue: 0/0/0/0, scheduled: 7 loaded plugins: charon aes des sha1 sha2 md5 random nonce x509 revocation constraints pubkey pkcs1 pkcs8 pgp dnskey pem openssl fips-prf gmp xcbc cmac hmac attr kernel-netlink resolve socket-default stroke updown xauth-generic Virtual IP pools (size/online/offline): android-hybrid: 1/0/0 android2: 1/1/0 Listening IP addresses: 96.244.142.28 Connections: android-hybrid: %any...%any IKEv1 android-hybrid: local: [C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org] uses public key authentication android-hybrid: cert: "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org" android-hybrid: remote: [%any] uses XAuth authentication: any android-hybrid: child: dynamic === dynamic TUNNEL android2: 96.244.142.28...%any IKEv1 android2: local: [C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org] uses public key authentication android2: cert: "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org" android2: remote: [C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client] uses public key authentication android2: cert: "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client" android2: remote: [%any] uses XAuth authentication: any android2: child: 0.0.0.0/0 === 10.0.0.0/24 TUNNEL Security Associations (1 up, 0 connecting): android2[3]: ESTABLISHED 10 seconds ago, 96.244.142.28[C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org]...208.54.35.241[C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client] android2[3]: Remote XAuth identity: android android2[3]: IKEv1 SPIs: 4151e371ad46b20d_i 59a56390d74792d2_r*, public key reauthentication in 56 minutes android2[3]: IKE proposal: AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024 The output of ip -s xfrm policy src ::/0 dst ::/0 uid 0 socket in action allow index 3851 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use - src ::/0 dst ::/0 uid 0 socket out action allow index 3844 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use - src ::/0 dst ::/0 uid 0 socket in action allow index 3835 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use - src ::/0 dst ::/0 uid 0 socket out action allow index 3828 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use - src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 socket in action allow index 3819 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use 2012-10-31 13:29:39 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 socket out action allow index 3812 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use 2012-10-31 13:29:22 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 socket in action allow index 3803 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use 2012-10-31 13:29:20 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 socket out action allow index 3796 priority 0 ptype main share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft 0(bytes), hard 0(bytes) limit: soft 0(packets), hard 0(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:29:08 use 2012-10-31 13:29:20 So a xfrm policy isn't being created for the connection, even though there is an SA between device and strongswan. Executing ip -s xfrm policy on the android device results in the following output: src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 10.0.0.2/32 uid 0 dir in action allow index 40 priority 2147483648 share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft (INF)(bytes), hard (INF)(bytes) limit: soft (INF)(packets), hard (INF)(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:42:08 use - tmpl src 96.244.142.28 dst 25.239.33.30 proto esp spi 0x00000000(0) reqid 0(0x00000000) mode tunnel level required share any enc-mask 00000000 auth-mask 00000000 comp-mask 00000000 src 10.0.0.2/32 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 dir out action allow index 33 priority 2147483648 share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft (INF)(bytes), hard (INF)(bytes) limit: soft (INF)(packets), hard (INF)(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:42:08 use - tmpl src 25.239.33.30 dst 96.244.142.28 proto esp spi 0x00000000(0) reqid 0(0x00000000) mode tunnel level required share any enc-mask 00000000 auth-mask 00000000 comp-mask 00000000 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 dir 4 action allow index 28 priority 0 share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft (INF)(bytes), hard (INF)(bytes) limit: soft (INF)(packets), hard (INF)(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:42:04 use 2012-10-31 13:42:08 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 dir 3 action allow index 19 priority 0 share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft (INF)(bytes), hard (INF)(bytes) limit: soft (INF)(packets), hard (INF)(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:42:04 use 2012-10-31 13:42:08 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 dir 4 action allow index 12 priority 0 share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft (INF)(bytes), hard (INF)(bytes) limit: soft (INF)(packets), hard (INF)(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:42:04 use 2012-10-31 13:42:06 src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 uid 0 dir 3 action allow index 3 priority 0 share any flag (0x00000000) lifetime config: limit: soft (INF)(bytes), hard (INF)(bytes) limit: soft (INF)(packets), hard (INF)(packets) expire add: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) expire use: soft 0(sec), hard 0(sec) lifetime current: 0(bytes), 0(packets) add 2012-10-31 13:42:04 use 2012-10-31 13:42:07 Logs from charon: 00[DMN] Starting IKE charon daemon (strongSwan 5.0.0, Linux 3.3.4-5.fc17.x86_64, x86_64) 00[KNL] listening on interfaces: 00[KNL] em1 00[KNL] 96.244.142.28 00[KNL] fe80::224:e8ff:fed2:18b2 00[CFG] loading ca certificates from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/cacerts' 00[CFG] loaded ca certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=strongSwan CA" from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/cacerts/caCert.pem' 00[CFG] loading aa certificates from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/aacerts' 00[CFG] loading ocsp signer certificates from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/ocspcerts' 00[CFG] loading attribute certificates from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/acerts' 00[CFG] loading crls from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/crls' 00[CFG] loading secrets from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.secrets' 00[CFG] loaded RSA private key from '/etc/strongswan/ipsec.d/private/clientKey.pem' 00[CFG] loaded IKE secret for %any 00[CFG] loaded EAP secret for android 00[CFG] loaded EAP secret for android 00[DMN] loaded plugins: charon aes des sha1 sha2 md5 random nonce x509 revocation constraints pubkey pkcs1 pkcs8 pgp dnskey pem openssl fips-prf gmp xcbc cmac hmac attr kernel-netlink resolve socket-default stroke updown xauth-generic 08[NET] waiting for data on sockets 16[LIB] created thread 16 [15338] 16[JOB] started worker thread 16 11[CFG] received stroke: add connection 'android-hybrid' 11[CFG] conn android-hybrid 11[CFG] left=%any 11[CFG] leftsubnet=(null) 11[CFG] leftsourceip=(null) 11[CFG] leftauth=pubkey 11[CFG] leftauth2=(null) 11[CFG] leftid=(null) 11[CFG] leftid2=(null) 11[CFG] leftrsakey=(null) 11[CFG] leftcert=serverCert.pem 11[CFG] leftcert2=(null) 11[CFG] leftca=(null) 11[CFG] leftca2=(null) 11[CFG] leftgroups=(null) 11[CFG] leftupdown=ipsec _updown iptables 11[CFG] right=%any 11[CFG] rightsubnet=(null) 11[CFG] rightsourceip=96.244.142.3 11[CFG] rightauth=xauth 11[CFG] rightauth2=(null) 11[CFG] rightid=%any 11[CFG] rightid2=(null) 11[CFG] rightrsakey=(null) 11[CFG] rightcert=(null) 11[CFG] rightcert2=(null) 11[CFG] rightca=(null) 11[CFG] rightca2=(null) 11[CFG] rightgroups=(null) 11[CFG] rightupdown=(null) 11[CFG] eap_identity=(null) 11[CFG] aaa_identity=(null) 11[CFG] xauth_identity=(null) 11[CFG] ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024 11[CFG] esp=aes128-sha1-modp2048,3des-sha1-modp1536 11[CFG] dpddelay=30 11[CFG] dpdtimeout=150 11[CFG] dpdaction=0 11[CFG] closeaction=0 11[CFG] mediation=no 11[CFG] mediated_by=(null) 11[CFG] me_peerid=(null) 11[CFG] keyexchange=ikev1 11[KNL] getting interface name for %any 11[KNL] %any is not a local address 11[KNL] getting interface name for %any 11[KNL] %any is not a local address 11[CFG] left nor right host is our side, assuming left=local 11[CFG] loaded certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org" from 'serverCert.pem' 11[CFG] id '%any' not confirmed by certificate, defaulting to 'C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org' 11[CFG] added configuration 'android-hybrid' 11[CFG] adding virtual IP address pool 'android-hybrid': 96.244.142.3/32 13[CFG] received stroke: add connection 'android2' 13[CFG] conn android2 13[CFG] left=96.244.142.28 13[CFG] leftsubnet=0.0.0.0/0 13[CFG] leftsourceip=(null) 13[CFG] leftauth=pubkey 13[CFG] leftauth2=(null) 13[CFG] leftid=(null) 13[CFG] leftid2=(null) 13[CFG] leftrsakey=(null) 13[CFG] leftcert=serverCert.pem 13[CFG] leftcert2=(null) 13[CFG] leftca=(null) 13[CFG] leftca2=(null) 13[CFG] leftgroups=(null) 13[CFG] leftupdown=ipsec _updown iptables 13[CFG] right=%any 13[CFG] rightsubnet=10.0.0.0/24 13[CFG] rightsourceip=10.0.0.2 13[CFG] rightauth=pubkey 13[CFG] rightauth2=xauth 13[CFG] rightid=(null) 13[CFG] rightid2=(null) 13[CFG] rightrsakey=(null) 13[CFG] rightcert=clientCert.pem 13[CFG] rightcert2=(null) 13[CFG] rightca=(null) 13[CFG] rightca2=(null) 13[CFG] rightgroups=(null) 13[CFG] rightupdown=(null) 13[CFG] eap_identity=(null) 13[CFG] aaa_identity=(null) 13[CFG] xauth_identity=(null) 13[CFG] ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024 13[CFG] esp=aes128-sha1-modp2048,3des-sha1-modp1536 13[CFG] dpddelay=30 13[CFG] dpdtimeout=150 13[CFG] dpdaction=0 13[CFG] closeaction=0 13[CFG] mediation=no 13[CFG] mediated_by=(null) 13[CFG] me_peerid=(null) 13[CFG] keyexchange=ikev0 13[KNL] getting interface name for %any 13[KNL] %any is not a local address 13[KNL] getting interface name for 96.244.142.28 13[KNL] 96.244.142.28 is on interface em1 13[CFG] loaded certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org" from 'serverCert.pem' 13[CFG] id '96.244.142.28' not confirmed by certificate, defaulting to 'C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org' 13[CFG] loaded certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client" from 'clientCert.pem' 13[CFG] id '%any' not confirmed by certificate, defaulting to 'C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client' 13[CFG] added configuration 'android2' 13[CFG] adding virtual IP address pool 'android2': 10.0.0.2/32 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[32235] to 96.244.142.28[500] 15[CFG] looking for an ike config for 96.244.142.28...208.54.35.241 15[CFG] candidate: %any...%any, prio 2 15[CFG] candidate: 96.244.142.28...%any, prio 5 15[CFG] found matching ike config: 96.244.142.28...%any with prio 5 01[JOB] next event in 29s 999ms, waiting 15[IKE] received NAT-T (RFC 3947) vendor ID 15[IKE] received draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02 vendor ID 15[IKE] received draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02\n vendor ID 15[IKE] received draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-00 vendor ID 15[IKE] received XAuth vendor ID 15[IKE] received Cisco Unity vendor ID 15[IKE] received DPD vendor ID 15[IKE] 208.54.35.241 is initiating a Main Mode IKE_SA 15[IKE] IKE_SA (unnamed)[1] state change: CREATED => CONNECTING 15[CFG] selecting proposal: 15[CFG] proposal matches 15[CFG] received proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_1024, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_1024, IKE:DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:DES_CBC/HMAC_MD5_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/MODP_1024 15[CFG] configured proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, IKE:AES_CBC_128/AES_CBC_192/AES_CBC_256/3DES_CBC/CAMELLIA_CBC_128/CAMELLIA_CBC_192/CAMELLIA_CBC_256/HMAC_MD5_96/HMAC_SHA1_96/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/AES_XCBC_96/AES_CMAC_96/PRF_HMAC_MD5/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512/PRF_AES128_XCBC/PRF_AES128_CMAC/MODP_2048/MODP_2048_224/MODP_2048_256/MODP_1536/MODP_4096/MODP_8192/MODP_1024/MODP_1024_160 15[CFG] selected proposal: IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024 15[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[500] to 208.54.35.241[32235] 04[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[500] to 208.54.35.241[32235] 15[MGR] checkin IKE_SA (unnamed)[1] 15[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[32235] to 96.244.142.28[500] 08[NET] waiting for data on sockets 07[MGR] checkout IKE_SA by message 07[MGR] IKE_SA (unnamed)[1] successfully checked out 07[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[32235] to 96.244.142.28[500] 07[LIB] size of DH secret exponent: 1023 bits 07[IKE] remote host is behind NAT 07[IKE] sending cert request for "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=strongSwan CA" 07[ENC] generating NAT_D_V1 payload finished 07[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[500] to 208.54.35.241[32235] 07[MGR] checkin IKE_SA (unnamed)[1] 07[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 04[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[500] to 208.54.35.241[32235] 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 10[IKE] ignoring certificate request without data 10[IKE] received end entity cert "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client" 10[CFG] looking for XAuthInitRSA peer configs matching 96.244.142.28...208.54.35.241[C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client] 10[CFG] candidate "android-hybrid", match: 1/1/2/2 (me/other/ike/version) 10[CFG] candidate "android2", match: 1/20/5/1 (me/other/ike/version) 10[CFG] selected peer config "android2" 10[CFG] certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client" key: 2048 bit RSA 10[CFG] using trusted ca certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=strongSwan CA" 10[CFG] checking certificate status of "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client" 10[CFG] ocsp check skipped, no ocsp found 10[CFG] certificate status is not available 10[CFG] certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=strongSwan CA" key: 2048 bit RSA 10[CFG] reached self-signed root ca with a path length of 0 10[CFG] using trusted certificate "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client" 10[IKE] authentication of 'C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client' with RSA successful 10[ENC] added payload of type ID_V1 to message 10[ENC] added payload of type SIGNATURE_V1 to message 10[IKE] authentication of 'C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org' (myself) successful 10[IKE] queueing XAUTH task 10[IKE] sending end entity cert "C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org" 10[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 04[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 10[IKE] activating new tasks 10[IKE] activating XAUTH task 10[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 04[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 01[JOB] next event in 3s 999ms, waiting 10[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 10[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 08[NET] waiting for data on sockets 12[MGR] checkout IKE_SA by message 12[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 12[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 12[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 12[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 16[MGR] checkout IKE_SA by message 16[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 16[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 08[NET] waiting for data on sockets 16[IKE] XAuth authentication of 'android' successful 16[IKE] reinitiating already active tasks 16[IKE] XAUTH task 16[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 04[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 16[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 01[JOB] next event in 3s 907ms, waiting 16[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 09[MGR] checkout IKE_SA by message 09[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 09[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] .8rS 09[IKE] IKE_SA android2[1] established between 96.244.142.28[C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=vpn.strongswan.org]...208.54.35.241[C=CH, O=strongSwan, CN=client] 09[IKE] IKE_SA android2[1] state change: CONNECTING => ESTABLISHED 09[IKE] scheduling reauthentication in 3409s 09[IKE] maximum IKE_SA lifetime 3589s 09[IKE] activating new tasks 09[IKE] nothing to initiate 09[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 09[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 09[MGR] checkout IKE_SA 09[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 09[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 09[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 01[JOB] next event in 3s 854ms, waiting 08[NET] waiting for data on sockets 08[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 14[MGR] checkout IKE_SA by message 14[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 14[NET] received packet: from 208.54.35.241[35595] to 96.244.142.28[4500] 14[IKE] processing INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS attribute 14[IKE] processing INTERNAL_IP4_NETMASK attribute 14[IKE] processing INTERNAL_IP4_DNS attribute 14[IKE] processing INTERNAL_IP4_NBNS attribute 14[IKE] processing UNITY_BANNER attribute 14[IKE] processing UNITY_DEF_DOMAIN attribute 14[IKE] processing UNITY_SPLITDNS_NAME attribute 14[IKE] processing UNITY_SPLIT_INCLUDE attribute 14[IKE] processing UNITY_LOCAL_LAN attribute 14[IKE] processing APPLICATION_VERSION attribute 14[IKE] peer requested virtual IP %any 14[CFG] assigning new lease to 'android' 14[IKE] assigning virtual IP 10.0.0.2 to peer 'android' 14[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 14[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 14[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 04[NET] sending packet: from 96.244.142.28[4500] to 208.54.35.241[35595] 08[NET] waiting for data on sockets 01[JOB] got event, queuing job for execution 01[JOB] next event in 91ms, waiting 13[MGR] checkout IKE_SA 13[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 13[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 13[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful. 01[JOB] got event, queuing job for execution 01[JOB] next event in 24s 136ms, waiting 15[MGR] checkout IKE_SA 15[MGR] IKE_SA android2[1] successfully checked out 15[MGR] checkin IKE_SA android2[1] 15[MGR] check-in of IKE_SA successful.

    Read the article

  • Government Mandates and Programming Languages

    A recent SEC proposal (which, at over 600 pages, I havent read in any detail) includes the following: We are proposing to require the filing of a computer program (the waterfall computer program, as defined in the proposed rule) of the contractual cash flow provisions of the securities in the form of downloadable source code in Python, a commonly used computer programming language that is open source and interpretive. The computer program would be tagged in XML and required to be filed with the Commission as an exhibit. Under our proposal, the filed source code for the computer program, when downloaded and run (by loading it into an open Python session on the investors computer), would be required to allow the user to programmatically input information from the asset data file that we are proposing to require as described above. We believe that, with the waterfall computer program and the asset data file, investors would be better able to conduct their own evaluations of ABS and may be less likely to be dependent on the opinions of credit rating agencies. With respect to any registration statement on Form SF-1 (Section 239.44) or Form SF-3 (Section 239.45) relating to an offering of an asset-backed security that is required to comply with Item 1113(h) of Regulation AB, the Waterfall Computer Program (as defined in Item 1113(h)(1) of Regulation AB) must be written in the Python programming language and able to be downloaded and run on a local computer properly configured with a Python interpreter. The Waterfall Computer Program should be filed in the manner specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual. I dont see how it can be in investors best interests that the SEC demand a particular programming language be used for software related to investment data.  I have a feeling that investors who use computers at all already have software with which they are familiar, and that the vast majority of them are not running an open source scripting language on their machines to do their financial analysis.  In fact, I would wager that most of them are using tools like Excel, and if they really need to script anything, its being done with VBA in Excel. Now, Im not proposing that the SEC should require that the data be provided in Excel format with VBA scripts included so everyone can easily access the data (despite the fact that this would actually be pretty useful generally).  Rather, I think it is ill-advised for a government agency to make recommendations of this nature, period.  If the goal of the recommendation is to ensure that the way things work is codified in a transparent manner, than I can certainly respect that.  It seems to me that this could be accomplished without dictating the technology to use.  To wit: An Excel document could contain all of the data as well as the formulae necessary, and most likely would not require the end-user to install anything on their machine The SEC could simply create a calculator in the cloud such that any/all investors could use a single canonical web-based (or web service based) tool Millions of Java and .NET developers could write their own implementations You can read more about this issue, including the favorable position on it, on Jayanth Varmas blog. Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Using Recursive SQL and XML trick to PIVOT(OK, concat) a "Document Folder Structure Relationship" table, works like MySQL GROUP_CONCAT

    - by Kevin Shyr
    I'm in the process of building out a Data Warehouse and encountered this issue along the way.In the environment, there is a table that stores all the folders with the individual level.  For example, if a document is created here:{App Path}\Level 1\Level 2\Level 3\{document}, then the DocumentFolder table would look like this:IDID_ParentFolderName1NULLLevel 121Level 232Level 3To my understanding, the table was built so that:Each proposal can have multiple documents stored at various locationsDifferent users working on the proposal will have different access level to the folder; if one user is assigned access to a folder level, she/he can see all the sub folders and their content.Now we understand from an application point of view why this table was built this way.  But you can quickly see the pain this causes the report writer to show a document link on the report.  I wasn't surprised to find the report query had 5 self outer joins, which is at the mercy of nobody creating a document that is buried 6 levels deep, and not to mention the degradation in performance.With the help of 2 posts (at the end of this post), I was able to come up with this solution:Use recursive SQL to build out the folder pathUse SQL XML trick to concat the strings.Code (a reminder, I built this code in a stored procedure.  If you copy the syntax into a simple query window and execute, you'll get an incorrect syntax error) Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} -- Get all folders and group them by the original DocumentFolderID in PTSDocument table;WITH DocFoldersByDocFolderID(PTSDocumentFolderID_Original, PTSDocumentFolderID_Parent, sDocumentFolder, nLevel)AS (-- first member      SELECT 'PTSDocumentFolderID_Original' = d1.PTSDocumentFolderID            , PTSDocumentFolderID_Parent            , 'sDocumentFolder' = sName            , 'nLevel' = CONVERT(INT, 1000000)      FROM (SELECT DISTINCT PTSDocumentFolderID                  FROM dbo.PTSDocument_DY WITH(READPAST)            ) AS d1            INNER JOIN dbo.PTSDocumentFolder_DY AS df1 WITH(READPAST)                  ON d1.PTSDocumentFolderID = df1.PTSDocumentFolderID      UNION ALL      -- recursive      SELECT ddf1.PTSDocumentFolderID_Original            , df1.PTSDocumentFolderID_Parent            , 'sDocumentFolder' = df1.sName            , 'nLevel' = ddf1.nLevel - 1      FROM dbo.PTSDocumentFolder_DY AS df1 WITH(READPAST)            INNER JOIN DocFoldersByDocFolderID AS ddf1                  ON df1.PTSDocumentFolderID = ddf1.PTSDocumentFolderID_Parent)-- Flatten out folder path, DocFolderSingleByDocFolderID(PTSDocumentFolderID_Original, sDocumentFolder)AS (SELECT dfbdf.PTSDocumentFolderID_Original            , 'sDocumentFolder' = STUFF((SELECT '\' + sDocumentFolder                                         FROM DocFoldersByDocFolderID                                         WHERE (PTSDocumentFolderID_Original = dfbdf.PTSDocumentFolderID_Original)                                         ORDER BY PTSDocumentFolderID_Original, nLevel                                         FOR XML PATH ('')),1,1,'')      FROM DocFoldersByDocFolderID AS dfbdf      GROUP BY dfbdf.PTSDocumentFolderID_Original) And voila, I use the second CTE to join back to my original query (which is now a CTE for Source as we can now use MERGE to do INSERT and UPDATE at the same time).Each part of this solution would not solve the problem by itself because:If I don't use recursion, I cannot build out the path properly.  If I use the XML trick only, then I don't have the originating folder ID info that I need to link to the document.If I don't use the XML trick, then I don't have one row per document to show in the report.I could conceivably do this in the report function, but I'd rather not deal with the beginning or ending backslash and how to attach the document name.PIVOT doesn't do strings and UNPIVOT runs into the same problem as the above.I'm excited that each version of SQL server provides us new tools to solve old problems and/or enables us to solve problems in a more elegant wayThe 2 posts that helped me along:Recursive Queries Using Common Table ExpressionHow to use GROUP BY to concatenate strings in SQL server?

    Read the article

  • TFS - How much nesting on disk structure

    - by NealWalters
    We just got TFS installed and ready go. I'm trying to decide on the disk structure. Let's suppose I have two BizTalk projects called Common and BookTransfer (in actuality I have 7). [At this client, we adopted the style of having schemas, orchs, maps in one project called BizTalk.Artifacts]. A folder with the name "components" is C# code. We are using a CodePlex tool called BizTalk deployment framework which somewhat dictates part of the structure. I'm trying to decide how much nesting we should do on the disk directories (EC is the application name, and Common/BookTransfer or BizTalk Applications separated out for easier deploy/undeploy). Proposal #1: -EC - Main - Source - Common - Company.EC.Common.Biztalk.Artifacts [folder] - Company.EC.Common.BizTalk.Components [folder] - Company.EC.Common.Biztalk.Deployment [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.sln - BookTransfer - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Artifacts [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Components [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Components.UnitTest [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Deployment [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.sln Proposal #2 - a flatter approach -EC - Main - Source - Company.EC.Common.BizTalk.sln - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.sln - Company.EC.Common.Biztalk.Artifacts [folder] - Company.EC.Common.BizTalk.Components [folder] - Company.EC.Common.Biztalk.Deployment [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Artifacts [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Components [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Components.UnitTest [folder] - Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Deployment [folder] Current Structure (perhaps too many nested folders) Main Source Company EC Common BizTalk -Company .EC.Common.Biztalk.Artifacts [folder] -Company .EC.Common.BizTalk.Components [folder] -Company .EC.Common.Biztalk.Deployment [folder] Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.sln BookTransfer BizTalk Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Artifacts [folder] Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Components [folder] Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Components.UnitTest [folder] Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.Deployment [folder] Company.EC.BookTransfer.BizTalk.sln Thanks, Neal Walters

    Read the article

  • JSON-RPC and Json-rpc service discovery specifications

    - by Artyom
    Hello, I'm going to implement JSON-PRC web service. I need specifications for this. So far I had found only one resource that can be called as real specifications: JSON-RPC 1.0 http://json-rpc.org/wiki/specification Proposal of JSON-PRC 2.0: http://groups.google.com/group/json-rpc/web/json-rpc-2-0 (why is it on google groups?) However I've seen that JavaScript frameworks like Dojo actively use JSON-RPC SMD Service Mapping Description proposal But it requires JSON Schema specifications, but it redirects to incorrect URL as reference. So far I had found following: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema-02 And it is still draft... Can anybody point me to some actual specifications... At least something official updated? Because it looks like that implementing JSON-RPC 1.0 as is may be not enough, at least for frameworks like Dojo. Or am I wrong? Questions: Would implementation of JSON-RPC 1.0 specifications be enough to provide JSON-RPC service for most of modern clients, and how many clients there (if at-all) that actually support beyond JSON-RPC 1.0 capabilities (SMD, Schema, 2.0)? Because it looks like that JSON-RPC 1.0 is only one that has official specifications (and not draft) If I should implement SMD, or it is recommended can somebody point to official, most recent specifications of Json Schema and Service Mapping Description or links I found are really "the specifications?" Are JSON-RPC 2.0, SMD and JSON-Schema drafts stable enough to implement them? Note: do not suggest existing JSON-RPC service implementations. Anybody?

    Read the article

  • Full JSON-RPC specifications

    - by Artyom
    Hello, I'm going to implement JSON-PRC web service. I need specifications for this. So far I had found only one resource that can be called as real specifications: JSON-RPC 1.0 http://json-rpc.org/wiki/specification Proposal of JSON-PRC 2.0: http://groups.google.com/group/json-rpc/web/json-rpc-2-0 (why is it on google groups?) However I've seen that JavaScript frameworks like Dojo actively use JSON-RPC SMD Service Mapping Description proposal But it requires JSON Schema specifications, but it redirects to incorrect URL as reference. So far I had found following: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema-02 And it is still draft... Can anybody point me to spome actual specifications... At least something official updated? Because it looks like that implementing JSON-RPC 1.0 and 2.0 would not be enought, at least for frameworks like Dojo. Or am I wrong? Questions: Is it enough to implement JSON-RPC 1.0 specifications and 2.0 draft to be on safe side, would this work for most JSON-RPC clients? If I should implement SMD, or it is recommended can somebody point to official specifications of Json Schema and Service Mapping Description or links I found are really "specifications?" Note: do not suggest existing JSON-RPC service implementations.

    Read the article

  • StarTeam trunk.

    - by Nix
    I have the unfortunate opportunity of source control via Borland's StarTeam. It unfortunately does very few things well, and one supreme weakness is its view management. I love SVN and come from an SVN mindset. Our issue is post production release we are spending countless hours merging changes into a "production support" environment. Please do not harass me this was not my doing, I inherited it and am trying to present a better way of managing the repository. It is not an option to switch to a different SCM tool. Current setup Product.1.0 (TRUNK, current production code, and at this level are pending bug fixes) Product.2.0(true trunk anything checked in gets tested, and then released next production cycle, a lot of changes occur in this view) My proposal is going to be to swap them, have all development be done on the trunk (Production), tag on releases, and as needed create child views to represent production support bug fixes. Production Production.2.0.SP.1 I can not find any documentation to support the above proposal so I am trying to get feedback on whether or not the change is a good idea and if there is anything you would recommend doing differently.

    Read the article

  • Table Design For SystemSettings, Best Model

    - by Chris L
    Someone suggested moving a table full of settings, where each column is a setting name(or type) and the rows are the customers & their respective settings for each setting. ID | IsAdmin | ImagePath ------------------------------ 12 | 1          | \path\to\images 34 | 0          | \path\to\images The downside to this is every time we want a new setting name(or type) we alter the table(via sql) and add the new (column)setting name/type. Then update the rows(so that each customer now has a value for that setting). The new table design proposal. The proposal is to have a column for setting name and another column for setting. ID | SettingName | SettingValue ---------------------------- 12 | IsAdmin        | 1 12 | ImagePath   | \path\to\images 34 | IsAdmin        | 0 34 | ImagePath   | \path\to\images The point they made was that adding a new setting was as easy as a simple insert statement to the row, no added column. But something doesn't feel right about the second design, it looks bad, but I can't come up with any arguments against it. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • What should be the "trunk" development, or release

    - by Nix
    I have the unfortunate opportunity of source control via Borland's StarTeam. It unfortunately does very few things well, and one supreme weakness is its view management. I love SVN and come from an SVN mindset. Our issue is post production release we are spending countless hours merging changes into a "production support" environment. Please do not harass me this was not my doing, I inherited it and am trying to present a better way of managing the repository. It is not an option to switch to a different SCM tool. Current setup Product.1.0 (TRUNK, current production code, and at this level are pending bug fixes) Product.2.0(true trunk anything checked in gets tested, and then released next production cycle, a lot of changes occur in this view) My proposal is going to be to swap them, have all development be done on the trunk (Production), tag on releases, and as needed create child views to represent production support bug fixes. Production Production.2.0.SP.1 I can not find any documentation to support the above proposal so I am trying to get feedback on whether or not the change is a good idea and if there is anything you would recommend doing differently.

    Read the article

  • Have you considered doing revenue sharing to fund development of a mobile app? How would you do it?

    - by Brennan
    I am looking to build multiple mobile apps which leverage existing content and resources by enabling these mobile apps with web services. I will duplication much of the same features which are also in place and add more features that are possible on a mobile device like address book, maps and calendar integration to make the service much more useful. To fund these projects I see that I have 2 options. First I could simply quote them for the project based on my hourly rate and the estimate in hours that I will take the to complete the job. That may be a high number. The second option would be to do shared revenue with ads placed in the app. I could then take a percentage of any revenue that is generated from the app. There is also a hybrid where I might charge for a percentage of the estimated quote and then take a percentage of the revenue sharing. So my question is how much should I propose for the revenue sharing? Should it be 30%? Or maybe I should make it 70% up to a point that a certain dollar amount is reached? And should the revenue sharing agreement be for 12 months, 24 months or more? Should I include in the proposal an agreement that they will help promote this app with their content and resources? Ultimately this system will benefit both sides because it extends their reach into the mobile space instead of where they are currently with just print and web. I have tried to find some examples with a few Google searches but I keep hitting content about the Google and Apple revenue sharing models. I would like to get some solid examples that are working to compare against so that my proposal do build these apps is not completely off base.

    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 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >