Search Results

Search found 3251 results on 131 pages for 'firewall'.

Page 32/131 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• Nodes inside Cisco VPN. Incoming SSH requests allowed. But can't initiate an outbound SSH.

  - by Douglas Peter

  I've a gateway-to-gateway VPN setup between my Linksys RV042 router and a Cisco VPN. I am able to SSH into any of the machine inside the VPN from my network. But none of the machines inside the VPN can initiate an SSH into my network. It seems they've blocked even all ping requests to my network gateway. This is the requirement: I have scripts that SSH into the machines inside the VPN and run a long mysql query. The query generates an output to a file. The time that these queries take is variable. So I have a loop in my machine that periodically SSHes into the VPN machine and checks if the query has finished, and pulls the generated file using SCP. I need to simplify it thus: The script will run at the machine inside the VPN, and when the query completes, it will SSH into my machine and pushes the generated file. Thanks for any ideas.

  Read the article

• Sonicwall NAT Policy Loopback

  - by John

  I have an issue and am pretty perplexed over it. I have a sonicwall and its setup with NAT polices and reflexive nat for an internal web server. That is, only 2 policies, no loopback policy, and the internal clients can access the web server by public ip no problems. Now, on another connection, another sonicwall, i have the exact same setup for another web server, with exact same policies (obviously different IP's) and the internal clients can't access the internal website by its public IP without creating the loopback policy. Maybe on the first one I've overlooked it, but I don't see any loopback what so ever and its working fine. My question is, does anyone know why the first one works like this but the second one needs the loopback policy? Thanks

  Read the article

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

  - by Matchu

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

  Read the article

• How to activate Virtual Desktop on Fortigate 100A ?

  - by Deniz

  We did recently update the firmware on our Fortigate 100A box and after the upgrade we tried to use the "Virtual Desktop" feature. (This isn't a new firmware feature) We can't find a way to activate or use it. Does anyone have any experience on "Virtual Desktop" of Fortigate devices ?

  Read the article

• How can I debug a port/connectivity issue?

  - by rfw21

  I am running a simple WebSocket server on Amazon EC2 (Fedora Core). I've opened the relevant port using ec2-authorize, and checked that it's opened. Iptables is definitely not running. However I can't connect to the port from outside EC2. I've tried the following (my server is running on port 7000): telnet ec2-public-dns.xx.xx.xx.amazon.com 7000 (from within EC2: connects fine) nmap localhost (output includes line: 7000/tcp open afs3-fileserver) telnet ec2-public-dns.xx.xx.xx.amazon.com 7000 (this time from my local machine: I get "connection refused: Unable to connect to remote host") The strange thing is this: if I start Nginx on port 7000 then it works and I can connect from outside EC2! And the WebSocket server fails on port 80, where Nginx works fine. To me this suggests a problem with the WebSocket server, BUT I can connect to it successfully from within EC2. (And it works fine on a different VPS account). How can I debug this further? If anybody can stop me tearing my hair out, I'd be very grateful indeed :)

  Read the article

• Some HTTPS connections via NAT fail, but work on firewall itself.

  - by hnxn

  Hi, I am having trouble establishing some HTTPS connections from internal machines, even though these same connections work if initiated on the firewall itself. The firewall machine is running Ubuntu 10.04.1 and shorewall 4.4.6. The internet connection is Bell PPPoE DSL (in Canada). I have tried various MTU settings, it doesn't seem to make any difference. Other protocols (HTTP, FTP, etc) generally work. The problem seems to be limited to certain sites; this one never works from an internal machine, but always works from the firewall itself: From internal machine: $ wget https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif --2011-01-13 20:51:31-- https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif Resolving images.fedex.com... 184.24.96.69 Connecting to images.fedex.com|184.24.96.69|:443... connected. ^C From firewall: $ wget https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif --2011-01-13 20:58:28-- https://images.fedex.com/images/ascend/shared/headers/nxgen/corp_logo.gif Resolving images.fedex.com... 184.24.96.69 Connecting to images.fedex.com|184.24.96.69|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 840 [image/gif] Saving to: `corp_logo.gif' 2011-01-13 20:58:28 (149 MB/s) - `corp_logo.gif' saved [840/840] This URL always works from both internal and firewall: https://encrypted.google.com/images/logos/ssl_logo_lg.gif Any troubleshooting tips would be greatly appreciated!

  Read the article

• Smoothwall Express interface issues

  - by Timbermar

  I have a SmoothWall Express box that is currently configured with a Green and Purple interface. Both interfaces are in the same /24 subnet (which seems odd to me). The green interface (address of .254) has a DHCP server that is pushing addresses from .1 to .100 and the purple interface (.253) is pushing addresses from .101 to .120. Every machine here is trusted, and as such is connected to the green interface via a wired connection or wireless APs. Nothing is connected at all (port is physically empty, traffic graphs show no activity) to the purple interface. However, every machine here is pulling addresses from the purple interface. So the question boils down to, how do I remove/stop my machines from pulling from the purple dhcp interface? Also, shouldn't the purple interface (if we were using it for guest Wifi or something) be on a different subnet (i.e. 192.168.100.0/24 instead of 192.168.1.0/24 with all the trusted machines)?

  Read the article

• Linux server cannot be pinged

  - by misamisa

  I have set up a Linux server in DMZ. There is another Windows server running in same DMZ. These two servers can be pinged via internet using my home PC. However, the another Linux server rented from a hosting service provider can only be pinged from the Windows Server and not from the Linux server (accessed via internet). So the situation is: Windows server (DMZ) ---ping--- Rented Server.....Successful Linux server (DMZ) ---ping--- Rented Server.......Unreachable Home PC ---ping--- Linux server (DMZ).......Successful Home PC ---ping--- Windows server (DMZ).....Successful When I ran tcpdump on my Linux Server(DMZ) and started ping from Rented Server, it showed that the Linux Server(DMZ) is receiving ping and replying. There is no restriction defined in hosts.deny and hosts.allow file that might cause this problem. What else should I check to get this working?

  Read the article

• iptables blocking ssh communication

  - by Michal Sapsa

  I'm using this script for iptables: #!/bin/sh echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -F iptables -X iptables -F -t nat iptables -X -t nat iptables -F -t filter iptables -X -t filter iptables -t filter -P FORWARD DROP iptables -t filter -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -d 0/0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t filter -A FORWARD -s 0/0 -d 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.1/255.255.255.0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.1/255.255.255.0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -d 0/0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -I FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p udp --dport 16161 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.251:16161 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p udp --sport 16161 -j DNAT --to 192.168.0.251:16161 #openvpn iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -I INPUT -p udp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT I end up with some iptables rules that should work but don't work - probably because of me. # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Mon May 26 13:15:43 2014 *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [1657523:1357257330] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [36804:34834370] -A PREROUTING -p icmp -j TRACE -A PREROUTING -p tcp -j TRACE -A OUTPUT -p icmp -j TRACE -A OUTPUT -p tcp -j TRACE COMMIT # Completed on Mon May 26 13:15:43 2014 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Mon May 26 13:15:43 2014 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [5033:345623] :INPUT ACCEPT [154:34662] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [6:1968] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2:120] -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 16161 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.251:22 -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 16161 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.251:22 -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Mon May 26 13:15:44 2014 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Mon May 26 13:15:44 2014 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [548:69692] :FORWARD DROP [8:384] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [2120:1097479] -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -d 192.168.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT COMMIT TRACE at PREROUTEING AND OUTPUT are only for debuging this thing. When I ssh at public ip with port 16161 I don't get any message, only TimeOut so it looks like I don't get communication back to remote server. ETH0 is the world, ETH1 is LAN Any IPTABLES Masters willing to give a hand ? iptables -vL Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 20548 packets, 3198K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 38822 7014K ACCEPT udp -- any any anywhere anywhere udp dpt:openvpn 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:openvpn Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 1129 packets, 64390 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 214K 11M TCPMSS tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcpflags: SYN,RST/SYN TCPMSS clamp to PMTU 4565K 1090M ACCEPT all -- any any 192.168.0.0/16 anywhere 5916K 7315M ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere 192.168.0.0/16 0 0 ACCEPT all -- any any 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere 192.168.0.251 tcp dpt:16161 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 59462 packets, 19M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

  Read the article

• How do I block IP addresses in SuSEFirewall?

  - by Evgeny

  Does SuSEfirewall in OpenSuSE 11 provide an easy way to block all traffic from a list of IP addresses? Ideally just a textfile into which I can put all IP addresses I want blocked, otherwise some configuration option. I've looked through /etc/sysconfig/SuSEfirewall2, but haven't been able to find anything like that.

  Read the article

• Typical outbound port list for guest access?

  - by Steve

  I manage a weekly rental house that includes wireless Internet access. I've allowed all outbound ports on my router but my ISP has disabled my Internet access twice now because guests have downloaded (or served up) copyrighted content. So I'd like to institute some port filtering to discourage p2p sharing (see disclaimer below). But I don't want to inconvenience the 99.9% of folks who keep things above-board. My question is, what outbound ports are typically open for rental/hotel wireless Internet access, or where can I find such a list? TCP 80,443,25,110 at a minimum. Though my own email service uses 995 and 465 for SSL, some may use IMAP, I personally use SSH and FTP, so I'll open those. Roughly I figure I need to open access to privileged ports, and close 1024 & above. Is there a whitelist I should institute for commonly used high ports? And does it make sense to block UDP 1024 ? Disclaimer: I realize anyone replying to this message could circumvent the port filtering and share content to their heart's content. I do not need comprehensive p2p blocking, which requires more than a port whitelist. Anyone staying at the house shoulders the responsibility for their Internet use, per the rental contract. Also anyone savvy enough to circumvent the port filters would hopefully be savvy enough to use some sort of peer blocking, thereby preventing the ISP from taking down the service.

  Read the article

• Cannot access firewalled jboss server from Internet Explorer

  - by Simon Gibbs

  I've produced a website for a client One Single Menu using JBoss and hosted it on Rackspace Cloud Servers running Ubuntu's Maverick Meerkat. Following advice, I esablished some iptables rule to protect jboss: iptables -I INPUT 1 -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080 iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -o lo -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080 iptables -A INPUT -j DROP Now, several versions of IE on several computers on at least two different ISPs cannot access the onesinglemenu.com. Curl from within the datacenter, Firefox, and Safari on the same ISPs can all access the server fine. I even tried IE and Firefox on the same computer and IE failed but Firefox worked. The error behaviour is that IE hangs on connecting without reporting an error, even after a minute or so. No page is displayed at all. I find it quite odd that I'm having a browser specific connection issue, but it appears to be the case. Help!

  Read the article

• What's the closest equivalent of Little Snitch (Mac program) on Windows?

  - by Charles Scowcroft

  I'm using Windows 7 and would like to have a feature like Little Snitch on the Mac that alerts you whenever a program on your computer makes an outgoing connection. Description of Little Snitch from its website: Little Snitch informs you whenever a program attempts to establish an outgoing Internet connection. You can then choose to allow or deny this connection, or define a rule how to handle similar, future connection attempts. This reliably prevents private data from being sent out without your knowledge. Little Snitch runs inconspicuously in the background and it can also detect network related activity of viruses, trojans and other malware. Little Snitch provides flexible configuration options, allowing you to grant specific permissions to your trusted applications or to prevent others from establishing particular Internet connections at all. So you will only be warned in those cases that really need your attention. Is there a program like Little Snitch for Windows?

  Read the article

• How long does a blocked connection from Iptables last? Is there a way to set the timeout?

  - by Josh

  iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m recent --set # If we receive more than 10 connections in 10 seconds block our friend. iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 5 --hitcount 15 -j Log-N-Drop I have these two relevant rules from iptables. if more than 15 connections are made in 5 seconds it logs the attempt and blocks it. How long does iptables maintain the counter? Does it refresh if connections are attempted again?

  Read the article

• What ports do I need open for IMAP connections

  - by iamjonesy

  I'm developing a web application that connects to an IMAP mailbox and fetches emails as part of it's functionality. The application is PHP and I'm connecting like this: public function connect() { /* connect to gmail */ $hostname = '{imap.gmail.com:993/imap/ssl}INBOX'; $username = $this->username; $password = $this->password; /* try to connect */ $this->inbox = imap_open($hostname,$username,$password) or die('Cannot connect to Gmail: ' . imap_last_error()); } Developing locally on my mac this was fine, I was able to connect and get emails. However now that I've put the app on my web hosts server I'm getting the following error: Cannot connect to Gmail: Can't connect to gmail-imap.l.google.com,993: Connection timed out After checking with my hosting provider they told me outgoing connections on port 993 are blocked. Is there anyway around this? Otherwise I need to upgrade to a dedicated server :S

  Read the article

• Nginx Forward SSL for single site

  - by Will.brown

  I have a nginx server setup and it works fine for http however i would like to bypass the proxy for https connection. I want it so that when someone goes to my ip https:// ip1 (Nginx server) it bypasses ngix and forwards all traffic to https:// ip2(webserver) i do not need ngix to do this for any ssl website just one particular website. SO Client to https:// ip1 to https:/ /ip2 to https:// ip1 to client pc I just want the nginx to not intercept the connection and forward it on and on return forward the connection to client Im guessing i do this by nat mascarade buy not exactly sure how to do it and if i will need to tell nginx to ignore ssl aswell can someone help me please this has gone me stuck

  Read the article

• Blocking a country (mass iP Ranges), best practice for the actual block

  - by kwiksand

  Hi all, This question has obviously been asked many times in many different forms, but I can't find an actual answer to the specific plan I've got. We run a popular European Commercial deals site, and are getting a large amount of incoming registrations/traffic from countries who cannot even take part in the deals we offer (and many of the retailers aren't even known outside Western Europe). I've identified the problem area to block a lot of this traffic, but (as expected) there are thousands of ip ranges required. My question now (finally!). On a test server, I created a script to block each range within iptables, but the amount of time it took to add the rules was large, and then iptables was unresponsive after this (especially when attempting a iptables -L). What is the most efficient way of blocking large numbers of ip ranges: iptables? Or a plugin where I can preload them efficiantly? hosts.deny? .htaccess (nasty as I'd be running it in apache on every load balanced web server)? Cheers

  Read the article

• Any tool to check which ports/protocols firewalls prevent?

  - by Jus12

  Suppose I have a setup as: host_1 --- Firewall_1 --- Internet --- Firewall_2 --- host_2 I need to check which ports are open on host_2 from host_1 (which may be blocked by either firewalls) If there a tool that comes in two parts (one running on host_1 and other on host_2) that does this for me? It should be something like: 1 Listen to all ports on host_2 2 Try to connect to every port on host_2 from host_1 3 Give a report what ports are allowed.

  Read the article

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

  - by Niro

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

  Read the article

• methods for preventing large scale data scraping from REST api

  - by Simon Kenyon Shepard

  I know the immediate answer to this is going to be there is no 100% reliable method of doing this. But I'd like to create a question that details the different possibilities, the difficulty of implementing them and success rates. I would like to go from simple software ip/request speed analysis to high end sophisticated soft/hardware tools, e.g. neural networks. With a goal of predicting and preventing bogus requests and attempts to scrape the service. Many Thanks.

  Read the article

• iptables secure squid proxy

  - by Lytithwyn

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

  Read the article

• Force failover a Cisco ASA

  - by user974896

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

  Read the article

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

  - by nixnotwin

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Roman

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

  Read the article

• How to activate the Virtual Desktop feature on Fortigate 100A ?

  - by Deniz

  We did recently update the firmware on our Fortigate 100A box and after the upgrade we tried to use the "Virtual Desktop" feature. (This isn't a new firmware feature) We can't find a way to activate or use it. Does anyone have any experience on "Virtual Desktop" of Fortigate devices ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >