Search Results

Search found 5212 results on 209 pages for 'forward'.

Page 43/209 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • How to access a port via OpenVpn only

    - by Andy M
    I've set up an openvpn server alongside an apache website that can only be accessed on port 8100 on the same machine. My /etc/openvpn/server.conf file looks like this: port 1194 proto tcp dev tun ca ./easy-rsa2/keys/ca.crt cert ./easy-rsa2/keys/server.crt key ./easy-rsa2/keys/server.key # This file should be kept secret dh ./easy-rsa2/keys/dh1024.pem # Diffie-Hellman parameter server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt # make sure clients can still connect to the internet push "redirect-gateway def1 bypass-dhcp" keepalive 10 120 comp-lzo persist-key persist-tun status openvpn-status.log verb 3 Now I tried to let only clients connected to the vpn network access the website on apache via port 8100. So I defined a few iptables rules: #!/bin/sh # My system IP/set ip address of server SERVER_IP="192.168.0.2" # Flushing all rules iptables -F iptables -X # Setting default filter policy iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P OUTPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Allow incoming access to port 8100 from OpenVPN 10.8.0.1 iptables -A INPUT -i tun0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o tun0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # outgoing http iptables -A OUTPUT -o tun0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i tun0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT Now when I connect to the server from my client computer and try to access the website on 192.168.0.2:8100, my browser can't open it. Will I have to forward traffic from tun0 to eth0? Or is there anything else I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • GIT : I keep having to merge my new branch

    - by mnml
    Hi, I have created a new branch and I'm working on it with others dev but for reasons when I want to push my new commits I always have to git merge origin/mynewbranch Otherwise I'm getting some errors: ! [rejected] mynewbranch -> mynewbranch (non-fast-forward) error: failed to push some refs to '[email protected]/repo.git' To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected Merge the remote changes before pushing again. See the 'Note about fast-forwards' section of 'git push --help' for details. You asked me to pull without telling me which branch you want to merge with, and 'branch.mynewbranch.merge' in your configuration file does not tell me, either. Please specify which branch you want to use on the command line and try again (e.g. 'git pull <repository> <refspec>'). See git-pull(1) for details. If you often merge with the same branch, you may want to use something like the following in your configuration file: [branch "mynewbranch"] remote = <nickname> merge = <remote-ref> [remote "<nickname>"] url = <url> fetch = <refspec> See git-config(1) for details. Why is it not automatic? Thanks

    Read the article

  • linux container bridge filters ARP reply

    - by Dani Camps
    I am using kernel 3.0, and I have configured a linux container that is bridged to a tap interface in my host computer. This is the bridge configuration: :~$ brctl show bridge-1 bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces bridge-1 8000.9249c78a510b no ns3-mesh-tap-1 vethjUErij My problem is that this bridge is dropping ARP replies that come from the ns3-mesh-tap-1 interface. Instead, if I statically populate the ARP tables and ping directly everything works, so it has to be something related to ARP. I have read about similar problems in related posts, and I have tried with the solutions explained therein but nothing seems to work. Specifically: ~$ grep net.bridge /etc/sysctl.conf net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-arptables = 0 net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables = 0 net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-ip6tables = 0 net.bridge.bridge-nf-filter-vlan-tagged = 0 net.bridge.bridge-nf-filter-pppoe-tagged = 0 arptables and ebtables are not installed. iptables FORWARD is all set to accept: Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination The bridged interfaces are set to PROMISC: ~$ ifconfig ns3-mesh-tap-1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 1a:c7:24:ef:36:1a ... UP BROADCAST PROMISC MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 vethjUErij Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr aa:b0:d1:3b:9a:0a .... UP BROADCAST RUNNING PROMISC MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 The macs learned by the bridge are correct (checked with brctl showmacs). Any insight on what I am doing wrong would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards Daniel

    Read the article

  • Things to check for an internet-facing email server.

    - by Shtééf
    I'm faced with the task of setting up a public-internet-facing email server, that will be relaying mail for all of our other servers in the network. While the software in itself is set up in few keystrokes, what little experience I have with managing an email server has thought me that there are tons of awkward filtering techniques employed by other email systems. Systems that my own server will inevitably interact with a some point. Hence, my questions: What things should be kept in mind and double checked when setting up an email server? What resources are available for checking if my email server is set-up correctly? I'm specifically NOT looking for instructions for any given mail server, such as Exchange or Postfix. But it's okay to say: “you should have X and Y in your set-up, because when talking to server software Z, it typically tries to weed out open relays by checking for these.” Some things I've discovered myself: Make sure forward and reverse DNS are set up. Mail servers tend to do a reverse lookup for the peer IP-address when receiving. Matching a reverse look up with a follow-up forward lookup is probably employed to weed out open relays run through malware on home networks. Make sure the user in the From-address exists. The From-address is easily spoofed. A receiving mail server may try to contact the mail server in the From-domain, and see if the From-user actually exists.

    Read the article

  • Centos iptables configuration for Wordpress and Gmail smtp

    - by Fabrizio
    Let me start off by saying that I'm a Centos newby, so all info, links and suggestions are very welcome! I recently set up a hosted server with Centos 6 and configured it as a webserver. The websites running on it are nothing special, just some low traffic projects. I tried to configure the server as default as possible, but I like it to be secure as well (no ftp, custom ssh port). Getting my Wordpress to run as desired, I'm running into some connection problems. 2 things are not working: installing plugins and updates through ssh2 (failed to connect to localhost:sshportnumber) sending emails from my site using the Gmail smtp (Failed to connect to server: Permission denied (13)) I have the feeling that these are both related to the iptables configuration, because I've tried everything else (I think). I tried opening up the firewall to accept traffic for ports 465 (gmail smtp) and ssh port (lets say this port is 8000), but both the issues remain. Ssh connections from the terminal are working fine though. After each change I tried implementing I restarted the iptables service. This is my iptables configuration (using vim): # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.7 on Sun Jun 1 13:20:20 2014 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8000 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 465 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A OUTPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8000 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 465 -j ACCEPT COMMIT # Completed on Sun Jun 1 13:20:20 2014 Are there any (obvious) issues with my iptables setup considering the above mentioned issues? Saying that the firewall is doing exactly nothing in this state is also an answer... And again, if you have any other suggestions for me to increase security (considering the basic things I do with this box), I would love hear it, also the obvious ones! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why would e-mail from our own domain not be forwarded to gmail

    - by netboffin
    To solve a problem with spam on our server we tried to forward e-mail from our dedicated server's mailserver(matrix smtp service) to gmail, but while most e-mails got through e-mail from our own domain all went missing. They weren't in the inbox or spam or anywhere else. We've had to go back to using the old system, which means my boss gets a huge amount of spam. We have a windows 2003 server with iis 6 and the matrix smtp service installed. I've toyed with the idea of installing a mail proxy like ASSP but it looks pretty complicated. We're hosting 20 domains on the server as well as our own which has an online shop whose payment system depends on email. I can't start playing around with complicated solutions when it could have disastrous consequences and I don't know enough to implement them safely. So my question has two parts: Part One: Why can't we forward e-mails from people using the same domain. If our domain was foobar.com then [email protected] can't receive from [email protected], but he can receive from everyone else. Part Two: Is there a really simple server side solution to spam that would work with matrix? For instance popfile?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a software / something to automate some simple audio processing

    - by Daniel Magliola
    I'm looking for a way to take a 1-hour podcast MP3 file and split it into several several 2-minute MP3s. Along the way, I'd like to also do a few things like Amplify the volume. The problem I'm solving is that I have a crappy MP3 player that won't let me seek forward or backward, nor will it remember where I left it when I turn it off, plus, I listen to these in a seriously high-noise situation. Thus, I need to be able to skip forward in large chunks (2-5 minutes) to the point where I left it. Is there any decent way to do this? Audacity doesn't seem to have command-line capabilities. I'm willing to write some code, for example, to call something over the command line and get how long the MP3 file is, to later know how many pieces i'll have, and then say "create an MP3 with 0:00 to 2:00", "create an MP3 with 2:00 to 4:00", etc. I'm also willing to pay for the right tools if necessary. I also don't care how slow this runs, as long as I can automate it :-) I'm doing this on Windows. Any pointers / ideas? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Reverse Proxy issues IIS on Windows Server 2012

    - by ahwm
    I've tried searching, but nothing seems to be working. I have a feeling it might be due to our custom Rewrite module. Here is the excerpt from the web.config that sets it up: <modules runAllManagedModulesForAllRequests="true"> <add name="UrlRewriteModule" type="EShop.UrlRewriteModule"/> </modules> EShop.UrlRewriteModule is a custom class in App_Code which handles incoming requests. I have set up the rewrite rules but it doesn't seem to want to work. I'm inclined to think that our rewrite class is interfering earlier than the proxy rules and saying that the page doesn't exist. Here's what we're trying to accomplish: We are working on a new site for a client, but they have a forum that they're not likely to want to move. I set up a new subdomain to point to the new server while the site is being completed (before we go live) and want the reverse proxy to forward test.domain.com/forum to www.domain.com/forum. After the site goes live, we'll need to forward using an IP address instead. I've set up a reverse proxy successfully with nginx, but we didn't want to set up another server if we didn't need to. Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Postfix + Exchange + ActiveDirectory; How to mix them

    - by itwb
    My client has got many sub-offices, and one head office. The headoffice has a domain name: business.com All users in the many sub-offices need to have a headoffice email address: [email protected] Anyone not in the head office will need the email forwarded to an external email address. All users in the head office will have their email delivered to Microsoft Exchange. Users are listed in Active Directory under two different OU's: HeadOffice or SubOffice. Is this something able to be configured? I've done some googling, but I can't find any examples or businesses set up this way. Edit: Postfix will accept all email, will need to determine to forward the email to an external account or alternatively have it delivered to MS Exchange. I've done some reading about MS Exchange and that you can 'mail-enable' contacts for forwarding - but I don't know if each AD account requires an Exchange CAL? The end goal is to forward email to external accounts to sub offices or accept email for head office. Maybe I don't need to worry about Postfix to perform this task..... http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/exchange-server-2010/exchange-server-licensing-some-of-your-questions-answered "What about client access licenses (CALs)? You need one CAL per user who will connect to Exchange. Although it might not be 100 percent precise, I prefer to think of it as one CAL per mailbox; there are exceptions for users outside your organization, automated tools that use mailboxes, and so on. Exchange doesn't enforce this limit, so it's on you to ensure that you have the correct number of CALs for the set of clients you support."

    Read the article

  • Replacement for public folder workflow, I'm confused as to how sharepoint does it.

    - by RodH257
    For years Microsoft has been slowly phasing out public folders, perhaps exchange 2010 really is the LAST TIME they'll be shipped... I've heard sharepoint is the replacement, but I don't understand full, can someone give me an idea of how to replace this workflow? In our office, we have projects, they have a project number, ie 10353. Each job folder has a public folder, organized in a hierachy like Projects Year Folder Subfolders The main subfolder we use is for genera correspondence. When an email is received that relates to a project, it is dragged and dropped (or right click move to) a public folder. Adding public folder favourites for each user helps this. When an email is sent, we have a custom email form, which is the default email form, but with a project number field next to the subject line. When you enter the job number in there, it carbon copies our filing system in, which reads the job number and puts the email in the public folder for you. if you need to refer to emails, you go to public folder and find them there. This isn't the best with large jobs, but it works ok. Now, I have limited experience with sharepoint (well, WSS), we've used it to do some neat discussion boards/polls etc as an intranet site, but I haven't seen much of its integration with outlook. The great thing about our solution is how tightly it integrates with outlook which is exactly where the emails are. If you want to forward an old email, you go to public folder and forward it, simple. Any solution that replaces it should be at least as easy as this. Improvements we would like would be to have better searching of emails, better support in exchange (ie future version) and also, custom forms in outlook are being phased out (the VBA kind), so avoiding these would be good. Does sharepoint do this? or what solutions do this kind of thing?

    Read the article

  • iptables firewall rules not allowing ssh from lan to DMZ

    - by ageis23
    Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REJECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:www reject-with tcp-reset REJECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:telnet reject-with tcp-reset ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED DROP udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:route DROP udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:route ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:route logdrop icmp -- anywhere anywhere logdrop igmp -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:5060 ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere state NEW logaccept 0 -- anywhere anywhere state NEW ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere logdrop 0 -- anywhere anywhere Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REJECT 0 -- 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT tcp -- choister 192.168.2.142 tcp dpt:ssh state NEW REJECT 0 -- 192.168.0.0/24 192.168.3.0/24 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT gre -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywhere ACCEPT tcp -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywhere tcp dpt:1723 ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere TCPMSS tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp flags:SYN,RST/SYN TCPMSS clamp to PMTU lan2wan 0 -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT 0 -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED logaccept tcp -- anywhere choister tcp dpt:www TRIGGER 0 -- anywhere anywhere TRIGGER type:in match:0 relate:0 trigger_out 0 -- anywhere anywhere logaccept 0 -- anywhere anywhere state NEW logdrop 0 -- anywhere anywhere The ssh server I'm trying to connect to is in the DMZ(192.168.0.145). It's mainly used as a web server. I need access to it from my room 192.168.2.142. I don't get why ssh can't forward onto the 192.168.2.0 subnet? I'm sure it's the reject rule that causing this because it works without it.

    Read the article

  • Why not block ICMP?

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

    Read the article

  • LXC, Port forwarding and iptables

    - by Roberto Aloi
    I have a LXC container (10.0.3.2) running on a host. A service is running inside the container on port 7000. From the host (10.0.3.1, lxcbr0), I can reach the service: $ telnet 10.0.3.2 7000 Trying 10.0.3.2... Connected to 10.0.3.2. Escape character is '^]'. I'd love to make the service running inside the container accessible to the outer world. Therefore, I want to forward port 7002 on the host to port 7000 on the container: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 7002 -j DNAT --to 10.0.3.2:7000 Which results in (iptables -t nat -L): DNAT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:afs3-prserver to:10.0.3.2:7000 Still, I cannot access the service from the host using the forwarded port: $ telnet 10.0.3.1 7002 Trying 10.0.3.1... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused I feel like I'm missing something stupid here. What things should I check? What's a good strategy to debug these situations? For completeness, here is how iptables are set on the host: iptables -F iptables -F -t nat iptables -F -t mangle iptables -X iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o lxcbr0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 7002 -j DNAT --to 10.0.3.2:7000

    Read the article

  • CentOS 5.7 issues with iptables

    - by Corey Whitaker
    I'm trying to set up IPTables on a new CentOS server. This server will function as an FTP server that I need to be accessible from the outside, however, I want to lock down SSH to only accept internal IP connections. I need to allow SSH for 10.0.0.0/8 and 172.16.132.0/24. Below I've posted my /etc/sysconfig/iptables file. Whenever I apply this, I essentially lock myself out and I have to access it via console using Vsphere. Can somebody show me what I'm doing wrong? I'm connecting from my laptop with an IP of 172.16.132.226. *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [115:15604] :RH-Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0] -A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A FORWARD -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p esp -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p ah -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -d 224.0.0.251 -p udp -m udp --dport 5353 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 10.0.0.0/8 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -s 172.16.132.0/24 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 20 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT

    Read the article

  • Juniper SSG20 IP settings for email server

    - by codemonkie
    We have 5 usable external static IP addresses leased by our ISP: .49 to .53, where .49 is assigned to the Juniper SSG20 firewall and NATed for 172.16.10.0/24 .50 is assigned to a windows box for web server and domain controller .51 is assigned to another windows box with exchange server (domain: mycompany1.com) mx record is pointing to 20x.xx.xxx.51 Currently there is a policy set for all SMTP incoming traffic addressed to .51 forward to the NATed address of the exchange server box (private IP: 172.16.10.194). We can send and receive emails for both internal and external, but the gmail is saying mails from mycomany1.com is not sent from the same IP as the mx lookup however is from 20x.xx.xxx.49: Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 20x.xx.xxx.49 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=20x.xx.xxx.49; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 20x.xx.xxx.49 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected] and the mx record in global dns space as well as in the domain controller .50 for mail.mycompany1.com is set to 20x.xx.xxx.51 My attempt to resolve the above issue is to Update the mx record from 20x.xx.xxx.51 to 20x.xx.xxx.49 Create a new VIP for SMTP traffic addressed to 20x.xx.xxx.49 to forward to 172.16.10.194 After my changes incoming email stopped working, I believe it has something to do with the Juniper setting that SMTP addressed to .49 is not forwarded to 172.16.10.194 Also, I have been wondering is it mandatory to assign an external static IP address to the Juniper firewall? Any helps appreciated. TIA

    Read the article

  • Adjust iptables

    - by madunix
    cat /etc/sysconfig/iptables: # Firewall configuration written by system-config-securitylevel # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :RH-Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0] -A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A FORWARD -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 51 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp --dport 5353 -d X.0.0.Y -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.Z.W --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -s M.M.M.M --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT I have the above following IPtables on my linux web server(Apache/MySQL), I want to have the following: Block any traffic from multiple IP's to my web server IP1:1.2.3.4.5, IP2:6.7.8.9 ..etc Limiting one host to 20 connections to 80 port, which should not affect non-malicious user, but would render slowloris unusable from one host. Limit MYSQL port 3306 access on my server only to the following IP range A.B.C.D/255.255.255.240 Block any ICMP traffic.

    Read the article

  • Linux as a router for public networks

    - by nixnotwin
    My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

    Read the article

  • Basic IPTables setup for OpenVPN/HTTP/HTTPS server

    - by Afronautica
    I'm trying to get a basic IPTables setup on my server which will allow HTTP/SSH access, as well as enable the use of the server as an OpenVPN tunnel. The following is my current rule setup - the problem is OpenVPN queries (port 1194) seemed to be getting dropped as a result of this ruleset. Pinging a website while logged into the VPN results in teh response: Request timeout for icmp_seq 1 92 bytes from 10.8.0.1: Destination Port Unreachable When I clear the IPTable rules pinging from the VPN works fine. Any ideas? iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i ! lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -j REJECT

    Read the article

  • LVS / IPVS difference in ActiveConn since upgrading

    - by Hans
    I've recently migrated from an old version of LVS / ldirectord (Ultra Monkey) to a new Debian install with ldirectord. Now the amount of Active Connections is usually higher than the amount of Inactive Connections, it used to be the other way around. Basically on the old load balancer the connections looked something like: -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn -> 10.84.32.21:0 Masq 1 12 252 -> 10.84.32.22:0 Masq 1 18 368 However since migrating it to the new load balancer it looks more like: -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn -> 10.84.32.21:0 Masq 1 313 141 -> 10.84.32.22:0 Masq 1 276 183 Old load balancer: Debian 3.1 ipvsadm 1.24 ldirectord 1.2.3 New load balancer: Debian 6.0.5 ipvsadm 1.25 ldirectord 1.0.3 (I guess the versioning system changed) Is it because the old load balancer was running a kernel from 2005, and ldirectord from 2004, and things have simply changed in the past 7 - 8 years? Did I miss some sysctl settings that I should be enforcing for it to behave in the same way? Everything appears to be working fine but can anyone see an issue with this behaviour? Thanks in advance! Additional info: I'm using LVS in masquerading mode, the real servers have the load balancer as their gateway. The real servers are running Apache, which hasn't changed during the upgrade. The boxes themselves show roughly the same amount of Inactive Connections shown in ipvsadm.

    Read the article

  • Apache forwarding to tomcat shows a blank page

    - by MNS
    I have an application running on tomcat at http ://www.example.com:9090/mycontext. The host name in server.xml points to www .example.com. I do not have localhost anymore. I am using apache to forward requests to tomcat using mod_proxy. Things work fine as long as the ProxyPath is /mycontext. The server name setup in virtual host is www .abc.com and http ://www.abc.com/mycontext works fine. However I would like to ignore the context path and simply use http://www.abc.com/ to forward requests to http://www.example.com:9090/mycontext. When I do this, apache shows me a blank page. What am I missing here? I have not changed anything in server.xml except the default host to www .example.com. <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName www.abc.com ProxyRequests Off ProxyPreserveHost On <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyPass / http://www.example.com:9090/mycontext ProxyPassReverse / http://www.example.com:9090/mycontext </VirtualHost> Thanks

    Read the article

  • Slower/cached Linux file system required

    - by Chopper3
    I know it sounds odd but I need a slower or cached filesystem. I have a lot of firewalls that are syslog'ing their data to a pair of Linux VMs which write these files to their 'local' (actually FC SAN attached) ext3-formatted disks and also forward the messages to our Splunk servers. The problem is that the syslog server is writing these syslog messages as hundreds, sometimes thousands, of tiny ~4k writes per second back to our FC SAN - which can handle this workload right now but our FW traffic's going to be growing by at least a factor of 5000% (really) in coming months and that'll be a pain for the SAN, I want to fix the root cause before it's a problem. So I need some help figuring out a way of getting these writes cached or held-off in some way from the 'physical' disks so that the VMs fire off larger, but less frequent, writes - there's no way of avoiding these writes but there's no need for it to do so many tiny ones. I've looked at the various ext3 options, setting noatime and nodiratime but that's not made much of a dent in the problem. Obviously I'm investigating other file systems but thought I'd throw this out in case others have the same problem in the future. Oh and I can't just forward these messages to Splunk, our firewall team insist they're in their original format for diag purposes.

    Read the article

  • How can use mod_rewrite to redirect a multiple specific URLs containing multiple query strings?

    - by Derek
    Hi there folks, we recently migrated a site from a custom CMS to drupal. In an effort to preserve some links that our users bookmarked (we have about 120 redirects) we would like to forward the original URLs to a new URL. I have been searching for a couple days, but can't seem to find anything simple to what I need. We have existing URLS that contain one or more query strings, for example: /article.php?issue_id=12&article_id=275 and we would like to forward to the new location: http://foobar.edu/content/super-happy-fun-article I started using: RewriteEngine On RewriteRule ^/article\.php?issue_id=12&article_id=275$ http://foobar.edu/content/super-happy-fun-article [R=301,L] This, however, does not work. A simple RewriteRule works: RewriteRule ^test\.php$ index.php It is unclear to me how I need to use {QUERY_STRING} with multiple Basically it's 120 simple redirects that go from one existing URL to a new one. I don't need ranges [0-9], because there is no sequential order to existing URLs. Perhaps I can do what I need with RewriteMap and a simple text file that contains a line like this: index.php?issue_id=12&articleType_section=0&articleType_id=65 http://foobar.edu/category/fall-2008 If anyone has any idea on using mod_rewrite to accomplish this or if there is a better, or more simple mod, I am open to that as well. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Enabling http access on port 80 for centos 6.3 from console

    - by Hugo
    Have a centos 6.3 box running on Parallels and I'm trying to open port 80 to be accesible from outside tried the gui solution from this post and it works, but I need to get it done from a script. Tried to do this: sudo /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT sudo /sbin/iptables-save sudo /sbin/service iptables restart This creates exactly the same iptables entries as the GUI tool except it does not work: $ telnet xx.xxx.xx.xx 80 Trying xx.xxx.xx.xx... telnet: connect to address xx.xxx.xx.xx: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host UPDATE: $ netstat -ntlp (No info could be read for "-p": geteuid()=500 but you should be root.) Active Internet connections (only servers) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:6379 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:111 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:80 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:22 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:631 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:25 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:37439 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 :::111 :::* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 :::22 :::* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 ::1:631 :::* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 :::60472 :::* LISTEN - $ sudo cat /etc/sysconfig/iptables # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.7 on Wed Dec 12 18:04:25 2012 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [5:640] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT # Completed on Wed Dec 12 18:04:25 2012

    Read the article

  • SNMP query - operation not permitted

    - by jperovic
    I am working on API that reads a lot of data via SNMP (routes, interfaces, QoS policies, etc...). Lately, I have experienced a random error stating: Operation not permitted Now, I use SNMP4J as core library and cannot really pinpoint the source of error. Some Stackoverflow questions have suggested OS being unable to open sufficient number of file handles but increasing that parameter did not help much. The strange thing is that error occurs only when iptables is up and running. Could it be that firewall is blocking some traffic? I have tried writing JUnit test that mimicked application's logic but no errors were fired... Any help would be appreciated! Thanks! IPTABLES *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2:96] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [68:4218] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [68:4218] # route redirect za SNMP Trap i syslog -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp -m udp --dport 514 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 33514 -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp -m udp --dport 162 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 33162 COMMIT *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT ..... # SNMP -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT # SNMP trap -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 162 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 33162 -j ACCEPT ..... -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT

    Read the article

  • Secure NAT setup with iptables

    - by TheBigB
    I have Debian running device that needs to act as an internet-gateway. On top of that I want to provide a firewall that not only blocks inbound traffic, but also outbound traffic. And I figured iptables should be able to do the job. The problem: I've configured NAT properly (I think?), but once I set the default policy to DROP and add rules to for instance allow HTTP traffic from inside the LAN, HTTP is not going through. So basically my rules don't seem to work. Below is the initialization script that I use for iptables. The device has two NICs, respectively eth0 (the WAN interface) and eth1 (the LAN interface). echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward # Flush tables iptables -F iptables -t nat -F # Set policies iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P OUTPUT DROP # NAT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow outbound HTTP from LAN? iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT Can anyone shed some light on this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >