Search Results

Search found 1275 results on 51 pages for 'nat weiss'.

Page 45/51 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

• How to make Virtualbox, OpenVPN, and Win2008 Web R2 like one another?

  - by Aquitaine

  Back with web developer guy wearing net admin hat. Hopefully this is an easy one. We have two servers on a public network at a hosted facility. Server A is our public-facing web server and server B is our database server. Both are running Windows 2008 Server R2 Web Edition. We want Server B isolated from everything except Server A, such that anyone who has to connect to server B goes through the VPN on Server A. It's not perfect since we have no access to do this on the router side, but it's what we've got. We've set up VirtualBox and OpenVPN Access Server on Server A. It has one network interface set to 'NAT' mode, such that OpenVPN gets its IP at 10.0.2.x, and to connect to the OpenVPN interface, I go to the local IP for the Virtualbox network adapter, 192.168.56.x, which works as I configured the appropriate ports using VBoxManage. My question is, do I need to be using Bridged Networking and give the VPN server its own IP, or is there some way to tell the server (either Windows or the Virtualbox OpenVPN) that 'any public connection on the real external IP on port X should be directed to this internal LAN address of 192.168.1.x on port Y'? OpenVPN itself doesn't seem to be aware of the server's real external IP unless we put it in Bridged networking mode; is that necessary or advisable? We're without RRAS since this is Web edition, but I feel like what we're going for is pretty simple. Thanks! Aq

  Read the article

• When connecting to PPTP Centos via Windows 7 VPN, I get error 2147943625

  - by Charlie Dyason

  The remote computer refused the network connection. phrase has been my arch enemy for the past week now I recently "bought" a VPS server, I gave up trying to configure it with OpenVPN, all the issues were making me lose my mind, so I tried the easier way with pptp, but i figure, both are leading to a dead end... I followed this post (many others too but this is the unlucky one), http://blog.secaserver.com/2011/10/install-vpn-pptp-server-centos-6/ and it all goes well with the setup, however, I run into this error when connecting to the VPN in Windows 7 here is a pic of the error: Image So I do not know what I have done wrong... When connecting, Code: Select all netstat -apn | grep -w 1723 before connecting: netstat -apn |grep -w 1723 tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:1723 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1137/pptpd after the error came I tried again: netstat -apn |grep -w 1723 tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:1723 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 1137/pptpd tcp 0 0 41.185.26.238:1723 41.13.212.47:49607 TIME_WAIT - iptables: # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.7 on Fri Nov 1 18:14:53 2013 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [63:8868] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1723 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p gre -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i ppp+ -o eth0 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o ppp+ -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT # Completed on Fri Nov 1 18:14:53 2013 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.7 on Fri Nov 1 18:14:53 2013 *nat : PREROUTING ACCEPT [96:12732] : POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] : OUTPUT ACCEPT [31:2179] -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Fri Nov 1 18:14:53 2013 options.pptpd the only changes was the require-mppe # BSD licensed ppp-2.4.2 upstream with MPPE only, kernel module ppp_mppe.o # {{{ refuse-pap refuse-chap refuse-mschap # Require the peer to authenticate itself using MS-CHAPv2 [Microsoft # Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol, Version 2] authentication. require-mschap-v2 require-mppe # Require MPPE 128-bit encryption # (note that MPPE requires the use of MSCHAP-V2 during authentication) require-mppe-128 # }}} I check the iptables, everything is normal, all INPUTs, etc are before rejects, username and password I also checked in chap-secrets file, I am really puzzled...

  Read the article

• Cisco IOS BVI ACL: Only allow established UDP

  - by George Bailey

  Related: Cisco IOS ACL: Don't permit incoming connections just because they are from port 80 I know we can use the established keyword for TCP.. but what can we do for UDP (short of replacing a Bridge or BVI with a NAT)? Answer I found out what "UDP has no connection" means. DNS uses UDP for example.. named (DNS server) is lisenting on port 53 nslookup (DNS client) starts listening on some random port and sends a packet to port 53 of the server and notes the source port in that packet. nslookup will retry 3 times if necessary. Also the packets are so small that it does not have to worry about them coming in the wrong order. If nslookup receives a response on that port that comes from the servers IP and port then it stops listening. If the server tried to send two responses (for example a response and a response to the retry) then the server would not care if either of them made it because the client has the job to retry. In fact.. unless ICMP 3/3 packet gets through the server would not know about a failure. This is different from TCP where you get connection closed or timed out errors. DNS allows for an easy retry from the client as well as small packets.. so UDP is an excellent choice because it is more efficient. In UDP you would see nslookup sends request named sends answer In TCP you would see nslookup's machine sends SYN named's machine sends SYN-ACK nslookup's machine sends ACK and the request named's machine sends the response That is much more than is necessary for a tiny DNS packet

  Read the article

• DNS: how to get local server to superimpose results over authoritative server?

  - by growse

  I've got a domain for which the DNS I control, and is hosted on the internet. I also have a NAT'd internal network (192.168.0.0/24) which has internet access, and which I also control. On this internal network, I also have a DNS resolver. DNS software on both is PowerDNS. What I want to be able to do is for the DNS resolver on the internal network to be able to add/change records of queries and results that come down from the authoritative server. For example, the authoritative server might have a single record for animal.example.com: animal.example.com. IN AAAA 2001:140:283::1 However, I'd like it so that when internal clients do a dns lookup for animal.example.com, they might get back the following: animal.example.com. IN AAAA 2001:140:283::1 animal.example.com. IN A 192.168.0.2 Obviously, I could set up the internal DNS server to pretend to be authoritative for example.com, but that would require a fair bit of effort to keep the main DNS server and the internal DNS server in sync for the records which are the same between both. If the internal DNS server could somehow be made a slave of the main DNS server, but also have the provision to add its own results in, that would be ideal. Is this possible?

  Read the article

• Blocking an IP in Webmin

  - by Dan J

  I've been checking my /var/log/secure log recently and have seen the same bot trying to brute force onto my Centos server running webmin. I created a chain + rule in Networking - Linux Firewall: Drop If source is 113.106.88.146 But I'm still seeing the attempted logins in the log: Jun 6 10:52:18 CentOS5 sshd[9711]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): check pass; user unknown Jun 6 10:52:18 CentOS5 sshd[9711]: pam_succeed_if(sshd:auth): error retrieving information about user larry Jun 6 10:52:19 CentOS5 sshd[9711]: Failed password for invalid user larry from 113.106.88.146 port 49328 ssh2 Here is the contents of /etc/sysconfig/iptables: # Generated by webmin *filter :banned-ips - [0:0] -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport ftp-data -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport ftp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport domain -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 20000 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 10000 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport https -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport http -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport imaps -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport imap -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport pop3s -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport pop3 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport ftp-data -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport ftp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport domain -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport smtp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport ssh -j ACCEPT -A banned-ips -s 113.106.88.146 -j DROP COMMIT # Completed # Generated by webmin *mangle :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] COMMIT # Completed # Generated by webmin *nat :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] COMMIT # Completed

  Read the article

• Isolate clients on same subnet?

  - by stefan.at.wpf

  Given n (e.g. 200) clients in a /24 subnet and the following network structure: client 1 \ . \ . switch -- firewall . / client n / (in words: all clients connected to one switch and the switch connected to the firewall) Now by default, e.g. client 1 and client n can communicate directly using the switch, without any packets ever arriving the firewall. Therefore none of those packets could be filtered. However I would like to filter the packets between the clients, therefore I want to disallow any direct communication between the clients. I know this is possible using vlans, but then - according to my understanding - I would have to put all clients in their own network. However I don't even have that much IP addresses: I have about 200 clients, only a /24 subnet and all clients shall have public ip addresses, therefore I can't just create a private network for each of them (well, maybe using some NAT, but I'd like to avoid that). So, is there any way to tell the switch: Forward all packets to the firewall, don't allow direct communication between clients? Thanks for any hint!

  Read the article

• SSH connection problem - allowed from LAN but not WAN

  - by Kerem Ulutas

  I tried to setup my Arch Linux installation to be an SSH host, but here is the thing: I can ssh localhost, it fails to login via public key and asks for username and password, but still able to login. When I try ssh my_wan_ip it gives ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host error. I've read all topics about this error and none helped me. By the way, just confirmed, it gives ssh: connect to host my_dyndns_hostname port 22: Connection refused from another machine (outside of my network, it has different wan ip). I have sshd: ALL in "hosts.allow", ALL:ALL in "hosts.deny". I am able to connect to my own pc via ssh, ping my own pc, but my ssh setup seems to be the problem, it gives that annoying error when I try to ssh from wan. /etc/ssh/ssh_config /etc/ssh/sshd_config And finally, here is the debug output for both sshd and ssh: (i ran ssh command and i took output to sshd debug after that): sshd debug ssh debug I can edit my question according to your needs. Just ask for any more information needed. BTW I have no iptables running. I have one cable dsl modem connected to a asus wl-330gE wireless access point, they both have their firewall disabled. I configured NAT so port 22 is directed to the pc I'm having this trouble. Any help appreciated, thanks..

  Read the article

• iptables configuration under ubuntu

  - by aioobe

  I'm following a tutorial on setting up a dns-tunnel. I've run into the following instruction: Now you need to enable forwarding on this server. I use iptables to implement masquerading. There are many HOWTOs about this (a simple one, for example). On Debian, the configuration file for iptables is in /var/lib/iptables/active. The relevant bit is: *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [6:1596] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [1:76] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [1:76] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/8 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT Restart iptables: /etc/init.d/iptables restart The problem is that I don't have any /var/lib/iptables/active. (I'm on ubuntu.) How can I accomplish this? I suspect that I should just interact with the iptables command somehow but I have no clue what to write. Best would probably be if I could put the commands in a script somehow I suppose. (A side-note. If I execute a few iptables-commands it wont be there for ever, right? The rules will be discarded on reboot?)

  Read the article

• Server 2003 and XP Client; Why are HTTP connections being silently dropped.

  - by Asa Yeamans

  On my network, my edge-router, a windows 2003 r2 server router with all the latest updates, will drop packets, but only under specific circumstances. I have troubleshot and isolated it down to the most simple configuration i can. There is NO NAT involved. Only fully-public IP addresses. No Firewalls are running either, all ahve been disabled. no packet filters on any interfaces anywhere either. I have a single Windows XP virtual machine and my edge-router(the windows 2003 r2 server, and also a virtual machine) running on a windows 2008 x64 r2 system (running virtual server 2005 as i dont have Intel-VT compatible chip yet). The edge router can access any external http site just fine, no issues. However the windows XP machine is only able to access certain sites. These work: www.google.com www.txstate.edu www.workintexas.com www.thedailywtf.com . These Dont: www.yahoo.com www.utexas.edu en.wikipedia.org slashdot.org www.bing.com. I have removed all possibility of DNS issues by connecting with net-cat from the XP box and sending GET /\r\nHost: \r\n\r\n and that connection replicates the issue as well. The network setup: My statically assigned IP block: x.x.x.168/29 DSL Modem -----PPPoE Connection---- x.x.x.169[EdgeRouter] [EdgeRouter]x.x.x.170 -----Virtual Ethernet----- x.x.x.174 [Test2] Test2's Default gateway is x.x.x.170 and test2 can ping any and every valid, accessible, public IP address with no packet loss what-so-ever. If i connect directly over PPPoE from test2 (the XP box) everything works just fine... Im at my wits end, i have NO IDEA whats causing this.

  Read the article

• iptables to block non-VPN-traffic if not through tun0

  - by dacrow

  I have a dedicated Webserver running Debian 6 and some Apache, Tomcat, Asterisk and Mail-stuff. Now we needed to add VPN support for a special program. We installed OpenVPN and registered with a VPN provider. The connection works well and we have a virtual tun0 interface for tunneling. To archive the goal for only tunneling a single program through VPN, we start the program with sudo -u username -g groupname command and added a iptables rule to mark all traffic coming from groupname iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -j MARK --set-mark 42 Afterwards we tell iptables to to some SNAT and tell ip route to use special routing table for marked traffic packets. Problem: if the VPN failes, there is a chance that the special to-be-tunneled program communicates over the normal eth0 interface. Desired solution: All marked traffic should not be allowed to go directly through eth0, it has to go through tun0 first. I tried the following commands which didn't work: iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname ! -o tun0 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -o eth0 -j REJECT It might be the problem, that the above iptable-rules didn't work due to the fact, that the packets are first marked, then put into tun0 and then transmitted by eth0 while they are still marked.. I don't know how to de-mark them after in tun0 or to tell iptables, that all marked packet may pass eth0, if they where in tun0 before or if they going to the gateway of my VPN provider. Does someone has any idea to a solution? Some config infos: iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t mangle Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 9798M bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 591K 50M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 MARK set 0x2a 2 82812 6938K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 CONNMARK save iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 393 packets, 23908 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 15 1052 SNAT all -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x2a to:VPN_IP ip rule add from all fwmark 42 lookup 42 ip route show table 42 default via VPN_IP dev tun0

  Read the article

• Redirection of outbound UDP port NTP.

  - by pboin

  For my residential service, I changed ISPs to Zoom/Armstrong. Just after that, my NTP daemons stopped working. I dug deep and diagnosed the problem: Unprivileged ports are getting out. When i run 'ntpdate' for example, I go out on a high, unprivleged port, and get a response on UDP 123. That's fine. The 'ntpd' daemon though, expects to go out on 123 and get its reply there as well. This must be a common problem, because it's directly addressed in the NTP troubleshooting guide. Just to see what would happen, I wrote a detailed email to the general support address at Armstrong. They replied almost immediately with a complete technical answer! They have everything <1024 blocked, except for a few ports to support outbound VPN. So, the question: Can I use IPtables to essentially re-write my outbound UDP 123 up to 2123 or something like that? If I do, does there need to be a corresponding 2123-123 rule to translate the reply? This seems like NAT, but with ports, not addresses. True, I could run ntpdate from cron, but that loses all of the adjustment smarts of NTP.

  Read the article

• CLOSE_WAIT sockets burst - perhaps because of iptables settings?

  - by Fabrizio Giudici

  I have an Ubuntu 12.04 server virtual box where basically the installed software and configuration are the default ones, plus the installation of a jetty 6 server which servers a few websites. To keep things simple I didn't install apache httpd and used iptables for exposing jetty (which runs on the 8080 port) to the port 80. These are the results of /sbin/iptables -t nat -L Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere localhost tcp dpt:http redir ports 8080 REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere Ubuntu-1104-natty-64-minimal tcp dpt:http redir ports 8080 Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere localhost tcp dpt:http redir ports 8080 REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere Ubuntu-1104-natty-64-minimal tcp dpt:http redir ports 8080 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination I must confess I have a shallow comprehension of how iptables works, in particular for the different kind of chains. This thing works, but sometimes I have an explosion of sockets that stay permanently in CLOSE_WAIT state. I know about what this state means, but since I didn't write the code that manages servlets (they are handled by jetty) I can't fix the problem by patching my code. Eventually the amount of CLOSE_WAIT sockets builds up and makes the server not responsive, so I have to restart jetty. I've looked around for similar problems wth CLOSE_WAIT, and only found cases related to the programmer's code, or problems with Tomcat, not Jetty. I was wondering whether they could be related to a partially broken iptables configuration (the alternative is a bug in Jetty 6, but I first want to exclude other possible causes). Thanks.

  Read the article

• Road Warrior VPN Setup

  - by wobblycogs

  I apologise up front for the rather open ended nature of this question but I've got well out of my depth and could really do with some pointers. I need to set up a road warrior VPN solution which will allow our customers to securely access a number of services we provide for them. Customer machines will be running a variety of Windows versions from XP onwards with a variety of patch levels. Typically they will connect from the clients main offices but not always. It is safe to assume that all clients will be behind NATs but we may occasionally see a connection that isn't NAT'ed. Typical connection situation is therefore: Customer Laptop -- Router (NAT) -- Internet -- VPN Server + Firewall -- Server (Win 2008 R2, Non-routable IP) There will initially be a dozen or so people that could connect but that will grow quickly to around 100. It's unlikely that we'll see that many concurrent connections though, I imagine our total VPN throughput would be <50Mbps peak. What are my options for setting this up? I've been trying to set up a system like this using a MikroTik router for a few days but have struggled to get it working correctly, particularly with NAT'ed clients. I've had a quick look at OpenVPN and liked what I saw but I think it's unlikely our customers IT departments would allow the client to be installed. Finally I've looked at the Cisco ASA range but I'm on a fairly tight budget so this is less preferable but it looks like it would work pretty much out of the box. My fall back position is to connect the server directly and use the provided VPN + Firewall facilities but that is far from ideal as the number of servers is likely to grow over time.

  Read the article

• IPTables Rule for Google Apps SMTP

  - by XpresServers

  I am trying to add iptables rule to allow traffic on ports 465 & 587 to google apps smtp servers. But I got not luck. My WHMCS installation works fine with google apps when I turn off iptables but iptables turn on itself again and email stop working. Please add rules to allow traffic from port 465 and 587. Following are my IPTables rules grabbed from /etc/sysconfig/iptables # Generated by iptables-save v1.3.5 on Fri Oct 5 01:33:52 2012 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [2191:434537] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [2390:987151] :acctboth - [0:0] -A INPUT -j acctboth -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --gid-owner mailman -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --gid-owner mail -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -d 127.0.0.1 -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --uid-owner cpanel -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --uid-owner root -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -j acctboth -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --sport 587 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --sport 465 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT <<IN THIS SPACE RULES ARE RELATED TO SPECIFIC IPS ONLY>> -A acctboth -i ! lo COMMIT # Completed on Fri Oct 5 01:33:52 2012 # Generated by iptables-save v1.3.5 on Fri Oct 5 01:33:52 2012 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [196:12398] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [191:15070] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [190:15010] -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --gid-owner mailman -j RETURN -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --gid-owner mail -j RETURN -A OUTPUT -d 127.0.0.1 -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --uid-owner cpanel -j RETURN -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -m owner --uid-owner root -j RETURN -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 25,465,587 -j REDIRECT COMMIT # Completed on Fri Oct 5 01:33:52 2012 Thanks Hassan

  Read the article

• ubuntu 9.04 pptp broken after a power failure

  - by kevin42

  I have a small Ubuntu 9.04 router setup as a NAT box and a PPTP server. After a power failure everything except the PPTP server still works. A windows client gets to "registering your computer on the network" but then says Error 742: The remote computer does not support the required data encryption type. I did some research and I think the problem is with the ppp_mppe module. When I try to run 'modprobe ppp_mppe' it hangs indefinitely. What would cause this hang? Any ideas how I can troubleshoot this further? Thanks for the help! UPDATE: I am still having the problem, however I have found some more information. When the first user tries to connect to pptp, the process list shows modprobe sha1 running, and one instance of modprobe ppp_mppe for each connection attempt. If I killall modprobe at this point the next connection attempt works, and everything is fine until the next reboot. I'm planning to do a clean install at some point in the future but I'd really like to get to the real cause of this.

  Read the article

• Mounting any Windows share from OS X 10.7.5 suddenly stopped working

  - by user2169619

  I have problem with mounting Windows network shares from my OS X 10.7.5 - it worked but it stopped and nothing helps and nothing in logs. Here what I get when trying to mount it manually: mount -t smbfs //10.0.0.7/d /tmp/test When doing sniffing with tshark - no packet it sent through and I get immediately return from the command: mount_smbfs: server connection failed: Unknown error: -1 Nothing in /var/log/syslog.log and /var/log/kern.log. The Finder does not work either - it throws an error that something is wrong (in czech thus I'm not sending the message here). I just cannot connect to any network shares. In virtual Windows 7 in Parallels Desktop I can connect successfully, but not within the network share (so the Win7 is behind OS X NAT) but only with its own IP address. The Windows server share is on the same network segment connected through switch. Any advice how to debug and what can be wrong? I spent hours to find solution on Google and here but no-one with this kind of problem and I do not know how to further debug it since there is no meaningful log / trace etc. I can ping 10.0.0.7 and I can connect to FTP server on 10.0.0.7 - the Windows machine (XP) has firewall completely turned off. The problem is that with tshark, I'm not seeing any packet sending to 10.0.0.7 so it's not even trying to reach the server.

  Read the article

• Tunneling a public IP to a remote machine

  - by Jim Paris

  I have a Linux server A with a block of 5 public IP addresses, 8.8.8.122/29. Currently, 8.8.8.122 is assigned to eth0, and 8.8.8.123 is assigned to eth0:1. I have another Linux machine B in a remote location, behind NAT. I would like to set up an tunnel between the two so that B can use the IP address 8.8.8.123 as its primary IP address. OpenVPN is probably the answer, but I can't quite figure out how to set things up (topology subnet or topology p2p might be appropriate. Or should I be using Ethernet bridging?). Security and encryption is not a big concern at this point, so GRE would be fine too -- machine B will be coming from a known IP address and can be authenticated based on that. How can I do this? Can anyone suggest an OpenVPN config, or some other approach, that could work in this situation? Ideally, it would also be able to handle multiple clients (e.g. share all four of spare IPs with other machines), without letting those clients use IPs to which they are not entitled.

  Read the article

• Route specific network traffic through vpn in virtualbox guest

  - by Sander

  I am running OSX with a windows server 2008 guest in Virtualbox. My goal is to route some of the network traffic in the host through the server guest. This is because the win2008 server has a VPN connection to my workplace using a Smartcard solution which can not operate on OSX. My current set-up is like this: OSX (Host): connected to the internet via en01 Win2008 (Guest): connected to the internet using NAT (lan1 in guest) has a SSTP VPN connection to my workplace is connected to the guest using an Host Only Adapter vboxnet0 (LAN2 in guest) The important part is about the host (OSX). Primarily I want all network traffic to just go through en01. However, all traffic which can only be accessed through the VPN must go through the guest and through the VPN. I have one specific FQDN which can only be accessed through the VPN (say corp.mycompany.com). I do not know much about networking. I thought I would be able to get it to work by bridging together LAN2 and LAN1 but this didn't seem to work this: http://archives.aidanfindlater.com/blog/2010/02/03/use-vpn-for-specific-sites-on-mac-os-x/ using a loopback adapter on WinXP (when I did not have win2008 yet, but this doesn't work because I can't create a PPTP connection) And I've also read about Routing and Remote Access but I have no idea on how to use this. Can someone help me in the right direction?

  Read the article

• libvirt's dnsmasq does not respond to dns queries or provide dhcp

  - by Jeremy

  This is on Ubuntu 10.04 server, using KVM to run Ubuntu guests. This system has been working for a long time and I have not changed anything (other than applying security updates), but today I found dnsmasq no longer responds to requests. I cannot say how long this has been broken for me because I don't frequently use the NAT'd guests. So it could have started just after the last updates or some other event and I just now found it. I can connect to port 53 with telnet at 192.168.122.1. I've flushed ip-tables to be sure it wasn't firewall rules and that is not the problem. dnsmasq is running, virsh reports default network as stared. I can't find ANY information on troubleshooting libvirt dnsmasq except that it won't play well with other instances of dnsmasq, which is not the problem. I cannot even find where log entries might be for this service. Any ideas on where to look for more information? edit to add: I added another network and that one works fine. I guess I have a workaround but would still like to figure out how to troubleshoot this problem.

  Read the article

• Packets being dropped by iptables

  - by Shadyabhi

  I am trying to create a Software Access Point in linux. I followed the blog here. Steps I performed: Started dhcp server on wlan0. Properly configured hostapd.conf Enabled packet forwarding & masquerading. Two commands executed regarding iptables: iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface wlan0 -j ACCEPT I enabled logging on iptables & I get this in everything.log Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.180356] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=38025 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK URGP=0 Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.389102] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=308 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=14732 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.389710] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=14988 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.621118] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=63378 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 I have almost no knowledge of iptables, all I did was through googling. So, can anyone help me in making me understand what wrong is happening here? I have tried running tcpdump on wlan0 & http packets are being sent from wlan0.

  Read the article

• Internet Explorer not working after establishing a SSTP VPN connection

  - by Massimo

  I have a problem which is constantly appearing on each Windows 7 computer I'm using, whenever I establish a SSTP VPN connection to a ForeFront TMG 2010 firewall; it only happens with SSTP connections, not PPTP/L2TP ones. The problem appears only if using a proxy server for Internet access; it doesn't happen when directly accessing the Internet (with or without NAT). It doesn't seem to depend on a specific proxy software being used (I've seen it happening with various ones). The problem is: as soon as I start the VPN connection, Internet Explorer can't access anything anymore. I'm not using the VPN connection as a default gateway, and I can succesfully ping the proxy server after the VPN connection is esatablished (and even telnet to its 8080 TCP port), so this is definitely not a routing problem. Also, the problem is specifically related to Internet Explorer: while it seems not able to connect to any site, other programs (such as FireFox) have no problem accessing the Internet through the same proxy. This behaviour can be easily reproduced on any Windows 7 computer (the service pack and patch level doesn't seem to matter at all). Have IE connect through a proxy, establish a SSTP VPN connection... and IE will just not work anymore until the VPN connection is dropped.

  Read the article

• iptables to block VPN-traffic if not through tun0

  - by dacrow

  I have a dedicated Webserver running Debian 6 and some Apache, Tomcat, Asterisk and Mail-stuff. Now we needed to add VPN support for a special program. We installed OpenVPN and registered with a VPN provider. The connection works well and we have a virtual tun0 interface for tunneling. To archive the goal for only tunneling a single program through VPN, we start the program with sudo -u username -g groupname command and added a iptables rule to mark all traffic coming from groupname iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -j MARK --set-mark 42 Afterwards we tell iptables to to some SNAT and tell ip route to use special routing table for marked traffic packets. Problem: if the VPN failes, there is a chance that the special to-be-tunneled program communicates over the normal eth0 interface. Desired solution: All marked traffic should not be allowed to go directly through eth0, it has to go through tun0 first. I tried the following commands which didn't work: iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname ! -o tun0 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -o eth0 -j REJECT It might be the problem, that the above iptable-rules didn't work due to the fact, that the packets are first marked, then put into tun0 and then transmitted by eth0 while they are still marked.. I don't know how to de-mark them after in tun0 or to tell iptables, that all marked packet may pass eth0, if they where in tun0 before or if they going to the gateway of my VPN provider. Does someone has any idea to a solution? Some config infos: iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t mangle Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 9798M bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 591K 50M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 MARK set 0x2a 2 82812 6938K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 CONNMARK save iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 393 packets, 23908 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 15 1052 SNAT all -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x2a to:VPN_IP ip rule add from all fwmark 42 lookup 42 ip route show table 42 default via VPN_IP dev tun0

  Read the article

• Route return traffic to correct gateway depending on service

  - by Marnix van Valen

  On my office network I have two internet connections and one CentOS server running a website (HTTPS on port 443). The website should be publicly accessible through the public IP of the first internet connection (ISP-1). The other internet connection, ISP-2, id the default gateway on the network. Both internet connections have routers (the household-kind) with NAT, SPI firewalls etc. The router on ISP-2 is a Netgear WNDR3700 (aka N600) with original firmware. The problem is that the website is unreachable. Looks like incoming traffic on ISP-1 will reach the server but the returning traffic is routed through ISP-2, effectively making the site unreachable. As far as I can tell I can't do port based routing on the WNDR3700. What are my options to make this work? I've been looking at implementing an iptables / routing based solution on the server itself but haven't been able to make that work. Update: Note that the server has one network interface connecting it to both routers.

  Read the article

• System and Router configuration for setting up a home firewall based on Zentyal

  - by Ako

  I am not much of a system administrator, so please be patient if this looks too simple for you. I have a several computers at home, and all of them connect using an ADSL modem/router (and Wireless AP). I have been attacked several times (mainly from Russia and Ukraine), so I thought I should have some kind of firewall, besides the ESET firewall on my Windows 7. So now I have these (new) configuration: I have a small ADSL modem (Zyxel brand) which has only one Ethernet port. This modem is used to connect to internet and is configured in NAT mode. The interface has is configured with IP address 192.168.1.1. I have an old PC and I have installed zentyal on it. It has two Ethernet ports, eth0 and eth1. Eth0 is connected to the Zyxel modem with IP 192.168.1.2 and is checked as the WAN interface (external). I have another ADSL modem which is also a router with 4 Ethernet ports and Wireless AP. One of the Ethernet ports is connected to eth1 on Zentyal box. The Ethernet port's IP is 192.168.2.1 and Zentyal's eth1 is 192.168.2.2. Now, I want to enable other computers to connect to internet through the router both using Wireless and Ethernet. The problem is that I don't know how to configure the router so it routes connections to the Zentyal box. Does anyone have any clue? Again I am sorry if this looks stupid. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Mangling traffic from a Mikrotik Router

  - by TiernanO

  I have a MikroTik powered Router in the house with a couple of internet connections (2 200/10Mb Cable modems and a 100/20Mb VDSL Line). I am using Mangle rules to set routing marks and NAT rules to do some load balancing, and everything seems to be going grand... But it only works for traffic from outside the router... Let me explain: I have 4 GigE ports on the machine, WAN1,2 and 3, and a LAN port named LAN1. All traffic from LAN1 is getting mangled (as it should be) but traffic from the load router itself (proxy traffic, IPv6 tunnels, VPN connections) are not being mangled. They get the first route to 0.0.0.0/0, which in my case is WAN2, and stick with it. So, how do I get traffic from the local router to be mangled? Originally it was proxy traffic that caused the problem, but now with IPv6 and VPN, they are more important to be mangled... last time i enabled IPv6 traffic, all traffic only went though WAN2, and the rest where unused... Any ideas?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >