Search Results

Search found 1798 results on 72 pages for 'incoming'.

Page 56/72 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

• Wake on Lan Remote not waking PC while the PC does receive the packet.

  - by Nycrea

  Over the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to set up WOL from a remote location. When I use my laptop to wake the machine locally, it works just fine. (for some reason, when I try to wake from my phone with an app called "WOL wake on lan" it does not work locally either, but I'll get to that later) Anyway, when the machine is turned on, and I let it 'listen' for incoming magic packets (with a program called "WOL magic packet sender") on my specified port, it does receive them, though when turned off, the machine does not wake. When sending from phone, either locally or via 3G remotely, it does receive but does not wake as well. Because the machine does receive them when turned on and listening, but does not wake when turned off, I am convinced the cause of the problem is my receiving PC, rather than the router or the sender. Some extra info: The receiving machine is a PC running Windows 7 64bit. My router is the Netgear JWNR2000v2. I have the port I use forwarded to my PC's static IP in the router. If anyone could help, or just share your own story with the same problem, maybe we can work this out. Thanks a lot in advance.

  Read the article

• saving and searching encrypted mail

  - by user53616

  I often send and receive gpg-encrypted mail. At the moment I use thunderbird + enigmail (in linux) to do that. As far as I know there is no way in thunderbird to find all encrypted messages which bodies contain particular keywords. There also seems to be no option to save encrypted mails decrypted (so they would be searchable). However for me it is important to be able to search old encrypted mails. So my question is: Is there a way in linux to save incoming mails automatically decrypted in my inbox and save outgoing encrypted mail decrypted in the send folder? Both times adding a line to the body which remarks that the mail was encrypted. It could be another email client for linux that could to that or perhaps a solution using procmail or maildrop. For a procmail solution I guess there could be some problems with encoding (perhaps one have to use emil?). Note that the solution should work for multipart encrypted messages (including encrypted attachments) too. Further note that I don't want a discussion about security holes. For me it's ok if messages are stored decrypted on my harddrive (which is encrypted as a whole anyway). In doubt for a first solution it would be ok to store my private key passphrase in cleartext on my harddrive, too. The point is that the mails are encrypted on the mailserver or more generally on their "way through the net".

  Read the article

• What can I do with a home server?

  - by Joel Coehoorn

  I have an old 700 Mhz Pentium III at home running Windows 2000 Server, with a home router set up to pass incoming requests to it and a DynDNS account set up so it's easy to find. Right now I'm using it for a number of things: Shared folders + backup inside the home network Shared Printer inside the home network Domain Controller, just because I feel like it and because it's useful to me as practice to keep those "enterprise" administration skills. Web Server FTP remote access for my files. I abandoned this for security reasons, but it's still worth leaving visible. Remote Desktop in to the home network (thinking about adding VPN service) SVN repository MySQL - Will be moving to SQL Server 2008 Standard soon. After I upgrade my wife's laptop from home to pro later this year it will also become a domain controller It's the only place I still have access to Internet Explorer 6 any more without setting up a new virtual machine, so I use it for testing code with that browser. The question is: What else could I be doing with this machine? Update Additional ideas based on the suggestions: Media Server/DVR Build server PBX SSH Proxy Server Continuous Integration Server Personal OpenID Provider Update2 Just a note that this server was recently upgraded to an Atom330 with 2 GB ram and bigger hard drive. For all that's slow for a "modern" cpu, it should still be much faster than the old Pentium III and the expected power savings should make the upgrade essentially free over the course of the next year or two. Also, it's now running Windows Server 2008.

  Read the article

• Openvpn - stuck on Connecting

  - by user224277

  I've got a problem with openvpn server... every time when I trying to connect to the VPN , I am getting a window with login and password box, so I typed my login and password (login = Common Name (user1) and password is from a challenge password from the client certificate. Logs : Jun 7 17:03:05 test ovpn-openvpn[5618]: Authenticate/Decrypt packet error: packet HMAC authentication failed Jun 7 17:03:05 test ovpn-openvpn[5618]: TLS Error: incoming packet authentication failed from [AF_INET]80.**.**.***:54179 Client.ovpn : client #dev tap dev tun #proto tcp proto udp remote [Server IP] 1194 resolv-retry infinite nobind persist-key persist-tun ca ca.crt cert user1.crt key user1.key <tls-auth> -----BEGIN OpenVPN Static key V1----- d1e0... -----END OpenVPN Static key V1----- </tls-auth> ns-cert-type server cipher AES-256-CBC comp-lzo yes verb 0 mute 20 My openvpn.conf : port 1194 #proto tcp proto udp #dev tap dev tun #dev-node MyTap ca /etc/openvpn/keys/ca.crt cert /etc/openvpn/keys/VPN.crt key /etc/openvpn/keys/VPN.key dh /etc/openvpn/keys/dh2048.pem server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt #push „route 192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0? #push „route 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0? keepalive 10 120 tls-auth /etc/openvpn/keys/ta.key 0 #cipher BF-CBC # Blowfish #cipher AES-128-CBC # AES #cipher DES-EDE3-CBC # Triple-DES comp-lzo #max-clients 100 #user nobody #group nogroup persist-key persist-tun status openvpn-status.log #log openvpn.log #log-append openvpn.log verb 3 sysctl : net.ipv4.ip_forward=1

  Read the article

• Apache + Tomcat: Which one should handle SSL? IP-based proxy forwarding?

  - by delirial

  We currently have a Tomcat application running with SSL on port 443. Right now we have an apache server that accepts http requests on port 80 and redirects to the Tomcat instance: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName domain.com ServerAlias domain.com <LocationMatch "/"> Redirect permanent / https://domain.com/ </LocationMatch> </VirtualHost> Tomcat is handling SSL, because there's no proxy, just a simple redirect to the SSL port: <Connector port="443" maxThreads="200" scheme="https" secure="true" SSLEnabled="true" keystoreFile="/app/ssl/domain_com.jks" keystorePass="ourpassword" clientAuth="false" sslProtocol="TLS"/> We want to begin using the apache web server as a proxy and additionally, do per-IP redirects to certain apps that should only be used by hosts on a pre-determined IP range. We would also like to redirect IPs that don't match the pre-determined list to a static html page hosted on the apache server. My first question is: Should I continue to handle SSL on Tomcat's end, or should I use apache with SSL while forwarding to an "unprotected" tomcat port? Is there any way to redirect to different apps (and potentially hosts) depending on the incoming IP? thanks, del

  Read the article

• Amazon EC2: Instances, IPs and a wordpress blog (LAMP)

  - by JustinXXVII

  I had a link to my blog posted on Reddit yesterday and MySQL crashed on my EC2 Micro instance. I know I didn't have that many visitors because I used a marketing link that tracks hits. The link got 167 hits over the course of the last 18 hours, and MySQL crashed twice. So anyway, 167 visits is not a lot, so I've done some short term optimizations like restricting the number of Apache threads to limit the MySQL calls. I also set up WP Super Cache to serve static content. Soon I'm going to offload all of my images to S3 or CloudFront. So this leads me to my question. If this doesn't seem to help, and if i have another traffic "spike", how do AMIs work when you have a MySQL database? I think I understand that if you have more than one instance and assign the same Elastic IP to both of them, the incoming traffic gets distributed among both. But what happens when the MySQL database gets updated on one of the instances? I just need to wrap my mind around what happens when I create an AMI and then launch a new instance to help with traffic. Thanks for your suggestions.

  Read the article

• Possible Solution for Setting up a Linux VPN Server to Encrypt WLAN Traffic of Macs and iPhones on

  - by GorillaPatch

  I would like to set up a VPN server on debian linux to encrypt wireless traffic coming from my Mac or iOS device. I would like to use a certificate-based solution. Setting up a PKI infrastructure and managing certificates is OK for me. 1. Which server to pick? By looking through the internet and here on stackoverflow I found the following possible solutions: strongSwan IPSec and racoon Which solution is feasible for a linode running debian squeeze? 2. How to configure the network? If I understood correctly a VPN has a virtual network interface as an endpoint on the server side. Naively I would think that I need a DHCP server running on the server to assign a dynamic private IP (like of the class C network 192.168.xxx.xxx) to the connecting clients. Next I think I would need to set up masquerading to NAT the incoming VPN traffic to the real interface directly connected to the internet. Is this the right way to go? Do you have any configuration examples? I often saw VPN configurations used to connect to your home network, but that is not what I am looking for. I have a server up in the internet and want to use it as a proxy to encrypt traffic in insecure network environments like public WLANs.

  Read the article

• Plesk FTP not working but SFTP and Shell is working

  - by shamittomar

  I am facing a strange problem. The FTP on my Plesk VPS is not working. Whenever I try to connect, FileZilla FTP client says: Status: Resolving address of xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com Status: Connecting to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21... Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message... Error: Could not connect to server So, it's not even going to the step of asking username/password. So, it's something else. The SFTP on port 22 is working fine. Also, I can successfully do shell access and run commands. But, I NEED FTP access too on port 21. I have searched everywhere but can not find any setting to enable it. This is the Plesk version info: Parallels Plesk Panel version 9.5.2 Operating system Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8 CPU GenuineIntel, Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz Any help is appreciated. [EDIT]: The firewall is not blocking it. I have checked it on server and there are absolutely no blocking rule. Firewall states: All incoming/outgoing connections are accepted on FTP And on client-side (my PC), I can connect to other FTP servers so this is not an issue in my PC's firewall. Moreover, I can not even connect to the FTP from online FTP clients like net2ftp.

  Read the article

• How can I stop SipVicious ('friendly-scanner') from flooding my SIP server?

  - by a1kmm

  I run an SIP server which listens on UDP port 5060, and needs to accept authenticated requests from the public Internet. The problem is that occasionally it gets picked up by people scanning for SIP servers to exploit, who then sit there all day trying to brute force the server. I use credentials that are long enough that this attack will never feasibly work, but it is annoying because it uses up a lot of bandwidth. I have tried setting up fail2ban to read the Asterisk log and ban IPs that do this with iptables, which stops Asterisk from seeing the incoming SIP REGISTER attempts after 10 failed attempts (which happens in well under a second at the rate of attacks I'm seeing). However, SipVicious derived scripts do not immediately stop sending after getting an ICMP Destination Host Unreachable - they keep hammering the connection with packets. The time until they stop is configurable, but unfortunately it seems that the attackers doing these types of brute force attacks generally set the timeout to be very high (attacks continue at a high rate for hours after fail2ban has stopped them from getting any SIP response back once they have seen initial confirmation of an SIP server). Is there a way to make it stop sending packets at my connection?

  Read the article

• Network structure --> Server 2k8r2 <--> Livebox <--> Router <--> Other PCs

  - by Yusuf

  I have a Livebox connection to the Internet and I have set up my network as follows: - Livebox <--> Win2k8R2 Server - Livebox <--> Netgear N150 Router - Router <--> Other PCs Therefore, in my LAN, - the Livebox has IP address 192.168.1.1, - the Router 192.168.1.12 (when accessed from the Livebox or the server), - the Router 10.0.0.1 (when accessed from the PCs connected to the Router), - the server 192.168.1.2, - the PCs 10.0.0.x I was using a previous configuration, which was as follows: - Livebox <--> Netgear N150 Router - Router <--> Win2k8R2 Server - Router <--> Other PCs Everything was simple, and I just had to forward all ports for incoming connection on the Livebox to the Router, and then forward the specific ports to the Server as needed (it must be however noted that any server I use is found on the Win2k8R2 server itself). In this previous configuration, the IP addresses were as follows: - Livebox 192.168.1.1 - Router 192.168.1.12 (when seen from Livebox) - Router 10.0.0.1 (when seen from server & PCs connected to it) - Server 10.0.0.2 - PCs 10.0.0.x So now of course, my port-forwarding does not work anymore since the server is not connected (directly) to the Router. What I would like to know is how do I configure the Livebox and Router to still have the features like before? From what I understand of networks (which is very limited, btw), I see these options: Make the router assign IPs like 192.168.1.x (but then I want the forwarding to be done from the router itself, is it possible?) The forwarding on the router to the server uses IP address 10.0.0.2. I could change it to 192.168.1.2 (Is that even possible, does it work?) Forward all ports from the Livebox itself to the server, and then manage them there (Is software-based port-forwarding as secure as hardware-based?)

  Read the article

• Multi- authentication scenario for a public internet service using Kerberos

  - by StrangeLoop

  I have a public web server which has users coming from internet (via HTTPS) and from a corporate intranet. I wish to use Kerberos authentication for the intranet users so that they would be automatically logged in the web application without the need to provide any login/password (assuming they are already logged to the Windows domain). For the users coming from internet I want to provide traditional basic/form- based authentication. User/password data for these users would be stored internally in a database used by the application. Web application will be configured to use Kerberos authentication for users coming from specific intranet ip networks and basic/form- based authentication will be used for the rest of the users. From a security perspective, are there some risks involved in this kind of setup or is this a generally accepted solution? My understanding is that server doesn't need access to KDC (see Kerberos authentication, service host and access to KDC) and it can be completely isolated from AD and corporate intranet. The server has a keytab file stored locally that is used to decrypt tickets sent by the users coming from intranet. The tickets only contain username and domain of the incoming user. Server never sees the passwords of authenticated users. If the server would be hacked and the keytab file compromised, it would mean that attacker could forge tickets for any domain user and get access to the web application as any user. But typically this is the case anyway if hacker gains access to the keytab file on the local filesystem. The encryption key contained in the keytab file is based on the service account password in AD and is in hashed form, I guess it is very difficult to brute force this password if strong Kerberos encryption like AES-256-SHA1 is used. As the server has no network access to intranet, even the compromised service account couldn't be directly used for anything.

  Read the article

• The best way to hide data Encryption,Connection,Hardware

  - by Tico Raaphorst

  So to say, if i have a VPS which i own now, and i wanted to make the most secure and stable system that i can make. How would i do that? Just to try: I installed debian 7 with LVM Encryption via installation: You get the 2 partitions a /boot and a encrypted partition. When booting you will be prompted to fill in the password to unlock the encryption of the encrypted partition, Which then will have more partitions like /home /usr and swapspace which will automatically mount. Now, i do need to fill in the password over a VNC-SSL connection via the control panel website of the VPS hoster, so they can see my disk encryption password if they wanted to, they have the option if they wanted to look at what i have as data right? Data encryption on VPS , Is it possible to have a 100% secure virtual private server? So lets say i have my server and it is sitting well locked next to me, with the following examples covered bios (you have to replace bios) raid (you have to unlock raid-config) disk (you have to unlock disk encryption) filelike-zip-tar (files are stored in encrypted archives) which are in some other crypted file mounted as partition (archives mounted as partitions) all on the same system So it will be slow but it would be extremely difficult to crack the encryption. So to say if you stole the server. Then i only need to make the connection like ssh safer with single use passwords, block all incoming and outgoing connections but give one "exception" for myself. And maybe one for if i somehow lose my identity for the "exeption" What other overkill but realistic security options are available, i have heard about SElinux?

  Read the article

• Apache suddenly very slow on http and faster on https

  - by hsnm

  Background: I have Apache 2 running on ubuntu. There is a low usage on it and mostly being accessed for a web service URL from mobile apps. It was working fine until I installed SSL certificates. I now have both http and https. When I access the server using https, I get a fairly quick response (but probably not as fast as before). When I use http, it's so slow. What I tried: From this post: I curl localhost from the host and it takes some time, meaning there is no routing issue. The server runs on Amazon EC2 instance and is managed by me only. Also: I see that Apache once running, creates the maximum number of processes it is allowed to, which was not the case before. I lowered the MaxClients to 20 and I think I'm getting faster responses but it still takes over a minute and I always have MaxClients Apache processes. dmesg returns many [ 1953.655703] TCP: Possible SYN flooding on port 80. Sending cookies. When I netstat I get many entries with SYN_RECV. Possibly a DDoS attack? From EC2's monitoring diagrams I see a pattern of high "Maximum Network In (Bytes)" since 2 days ago. By the way the server is still being tested, the actual traffic is very low and not consistent. I tried to go with this solution to limit incoming connections using iptables, still no luck, but I'm trying. Question: What could be the problem? Is this a DDoS attack?

  Read the article

• How to Set Up an SMTP Submission Server on Linux

  - by Kevin Cox

  I was trying to set up a mail server with no luck. I want it to accept mail from authenticated users only and deliver them. I want the users to be able to connect over the internet. Ideally the mail server wouldn't accept any incoming mail. Essentially I want it to accept messages on a receiving port and transfer them to the intended recipient out port 25. If anyone has some good links and guides that would be awesome. I am quite familiar with linux but have never played around with MTA's and am currently running debian 6. More Specific Problem! Sorry, that was general and postfix is complex. I am having trouble enabling the submission port with encryption and authentication. What Works: Sending mail from the local machine. (sendmail [email protected]). Ports are open. (25 and 587) Connecting to 587 appears to work, I get a "need to starttls" warning and starttls appears to work. But when I try to connect with the next command I get the error below. # openssl s_client -connect localhost:587 -starttls smtp CONNECTED(00000003) depth=0 /CN=localhost.localdomain verify error:num=18:self signed certificate verify return:1 depth=0 /CN=localhost.localdomain verify return:1 --- Certificate chain 0 s:/CN=localhost.localdomain i:/CN=localhost.localdomain --- Server certificate -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIICvDCCAaQCCQCYHnCzLRUoMTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADAgMR4wHAYDVQQDExVs b2NhbGhvc3QubG9jYWxkb21haW4wHhcNMTIwMjE3MTMxOTA1WhcNMjIwMjE0MTMx OTA1WjAgMR4wHAYDVQQDExVsb2NhbGhvc3QubG9jYWxkb21haW4wggEiMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDEFA/S6VhJihP6OGYrhEtL+SchWxPZGbgb VkgNJ6xK2dhR7hZXKcDtNddL3uf1YYWF76efS5oJPPjLb33NbHBb9imuD8PoynXN isz1oQEbzPE/07VC4srbsNIN92lldbRruDfjDrAbC/H+FBSUA2ImHvzc3xhIjdsb AbHasG1XBm8SkYULVedaD7I7YbnloCx0sTQgCM0Vjx29TXxPrpkcl6usjcQfZHqY ozg8X48Xm7F9CDip35Q+WwfZ6AcEkq9rJUOoZWrLWVcKusuYPCtUb6MdsZEH13IQ rA0+x8fUI3S0fW5xWWG0b4c5IxuM+eXz05DvB7mLyd+2+RwDAx2LAgMBAAEwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAAj1ib4lX28FhYdWv/RsHoGGFqf933SDipffBPM6Wlr0 jUn7wler7ilP65WVlTxDW+8PhdBmOrLUr0DO470AAS5uUOjdsPgGO+7VE/4/BN+/ naXVDzIcwyaiLbODIdG2s363V7gzibIuKUqOJ7oRLkwtxubt4D0CQN/7GNFY8cL2 in6FrYGDMNY+ve1tqPkukqQnes3DCeEo0+2KMGuwaJRQK3Es9WHotyrjrecPY170 dhDiLz4XaHU7xZwArAhMq/fay87liHvXR860tWq30oSb5DHQf4EloCQK4eJZQtFT B3xUDu7eFuCeXxjm4294YIPoWl5pbrP9vzLYAH+8ufE= -----END CERTIFICATE----- subject=/CN=localhost.localdomain issuer=/CN=localhost.localdomain --- No client certificate CA names sent --- SSL handshake has read 1605 bytes and written 354 bytes --- New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA Server public key is 2048 bit Secure Renegotiation IS supported Compression: NONE Expansion: NONE SSL-Session: Protocol : TLSv1 Cipher : DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA Session-ID: E07926641A5EF22B15EB1D0E03FFF75588AB6464702CF4DC2166FFDAC1CA73E2 Session-ID-ctx: Master-Key: 454E8D5D40380DB3A73336775D6911B3DA289E4A1C9587DDC168EC09C2C3457CB30321E44CAD6AE65A66BAE9F33959A9 Key-Arg : None Start Time: 1349059796 Timeout : 300 (sec) Verify return code: 18 (self signed certificate) --- 250 DSN read:errno=0 If I try to connect from evolution I get the following error: The reported error was "HELO command failed: TCP connection reset by peer".

  Read the article

• Diagnosing Random Network Lag

  - by uesp

  I'm having trouble diagnosing some random lag on a 6 server LAMP cluster serving a MediaWiki site. While we're serving some 100 pages/sec the servers themselves are running fine with less than 0.5 load, no locked processes, no paging, no errors being logged, etc.... Lag is present on all servers and is random: one minute its fine the next it's there. DNS lookups on the servers are randomly slow. For example time nslookup google.com varies randomly from a few milliseconds to several seconds and sometimes times out entirely. While we use IP addresses internally on the cluster this may be a symptom of the root issue. We are not running our own DNS server. The Apache server-status pages randomly lag or time out. Benchmarking using ab between servers shows a few loads sometimes take 3000 ms (almost exactly). Benchmarking server-status on the local server itself usually shows no issue (it showed a lag only once among a few hundred tests). The servers are sitting behind a switch and a firewall which I don't have any access to so I don't know their setup or status. While we are under heavier than normal load a 2 Mbps incoming and 20 Mbps outgoing traffic shouldn't be stressing the switch or firewall should it? My feeling is that it is the switch/firewall or something above them in the ISP like their DNS but can't confirm it. I need some other tests or methods of diagnosing this lag to try and narrow down the ultimate cause.

  Read the article

• From a performance standpoint, is there a preferred way to set up Thunderbird message filters?

  - by Steve V.

  When I used Kontact, I used filters heavily to sort my incoming email into various folders. Since switching to Thunderbird, I've been slowly recreating these filters as new mail arrives. This seems like the perfect time to rethink how I use message filters. The way I see it, there are two basic ways to filter messages. Either I can have lots of filters, or I can have lots of criteria. An example is in order. Assume that I get emails from four people (Boss, CEO, Intern, and StackOverflow) that I want to sort into two folders, "Stack" and "Work" Option A: Filter 1: if FROM contains "Boss" -> move to "Work" Filter 2: if FROM contains "CEO" -> move to "Work" Filter 3: if FROM contains "Intern" -> move to "Work" Filter 4: if FROM contains "StackOverflow" -> move to "Stack" Option B: Filter 1: if FROM contains "Boss" OR FROM contains "CEO" OR FROM contains "Intern" -> move to "Work" Filter 2: if FROM contains "StackOverflow" -> move to "Stack" Assuming that when I'm done, I'll have about a hundred different criteria to filter on, is one of these methods better than the other from a performance standpoint?

  Read the article

• Serving static content with Apache web server and Tomcat

  - by Hunter

  I've configured Apache web server and Tomcat like this: I created a new file in apache2/sites-available, named it "myDomain" with this content: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin [email protected] ServerName myDomain.com ServerAlias www.myDomain.com ProxyPass / ajp://localhost:8009 <Proxy *> AllowOverride AuthConfig Order allow,deny Allow from all Options -Indexes </Proxy> </VirtualHost> Enabled mod_proxy and myDomain a2enmod proxy_ajp a2ensite myDomain Edited Tomcat's server.xml (inside the Engine tag) <Host name="myDomain.com" appBase="webapps/myApp"> <Context path="" docBase="."/> </Host> <Host name="www.myDomain.com" appBase="webapps/myApp"> <Context path="" docBase="."/> </Host> This works great. But I don't like to put static files (html, images, videos etc.) into {tomcat home}/webapps/myApp's subfolders instead I'd like to put them the apache webserver's root WWW directory's subdirectories. And I'd like Apache web server to serve these files alone. How could I do this? So all incoming request will be forwarded to Tomcat except those that ask for a static file.

  Read the article

• Can Haproxy deny a request by IP if its stick-table is full?

  - by bantic

  In my haproxy configs I'm setting a stick-table of size 5 that stores every incoming IP address (for 1 minute), and it is set as nopurge so new entries won't get stored in the table. What I'd like to have happen is that they would get denied, but that isn't happening. The stick-table line is: stick-table type ip size 5 expire 1m nopurge store gpc0 And the whole configs are: global maxconn 30000 ulimit-n 65536 log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 debug stats socket /var/run/haproxy.stat mode 600 level operator defaults mode http timeout connect 5000ms timeout client 50000ms timeout server 50000ms backend fragile_backend tcp-request content track-sc2 src stick-table type ip size 5 expire 1m nopurge store gpc0 server fragile_backend1 A.B.C.D:80 frontend http_proxy bind *:80 mode http option forwardfor default_backend fragile_backend I have confirmed (connecting to haproxy's stats using socat readline /var/run/haproxy.stat) that the stick-table fills up with 5 IP addresses, but then every request after that from a new IP just goes straight through -- it isn't added to the stick-table, nothing is removed from the stick-table, and the request is not denied. What I'd like to do is deny the request if the stick-table is full. Is this possible? I'm using haproxy 1.5.

  Read the article

• Configuring two nearby WLANs: should I use the same ssid?

  - by Rory

  I'm configuring a home network for basic internet use (ie don't really need connectivity between workstations on the network). My brick walls mean a single wireless router doesn't provide good coverage throughout the house, so I have purchased two powerline adapters and now have the incoming modem/wireless router at one end of the house plugged into a powerline adapter, and at the other end of the house the other powerline adapter plugged into another wireless router. Currently the two wireless networks have different ssids. (The powerline adapters only do power-Ethernet; they're not wireless access points themselves.) This works well, except when I move between rooms and would ideally like my devices (iPad, phones, laptops) to switch from the weak to the strong signal. Sometimes there's enough signal that they hold on to the weak connects instead of switching to the strong one. Should I name the two networks the same ssid, and if so what is the actual effect? Do the signals get confused, is the bandwidth affected, will this help my devices seamlessly move from one to the other, or is the ssid just a cosmetic thing that actually doesn't have any impact on this situation? Are there any other settings that I should configure to make my setup optimal?

  Read the article

• Seeing traffic destined for other people's servers in wireshark

  - by user350325

  I rent a dedicated server from a hosting provider. I ran wireshark on my server so that I could see incoming HTTP traffic that was destined to my server. Once I ran wireshark and filtered for HTTP I noticed a load of traffic, but most of it was not for stuff that was hosted on my server and had a destination IP address that was not mine, there were various source IP addresses. My immediate reaction was to think that somebody was tunnelling their HTTP traffic through my server somehow. However when I looked closer I noticed that all of this traffic was going to hosts on the same subnet and all of these IP addresses belonged to the same hosting provider that I was using. So it appears that wireshark was intercepting traffic destined for other customers who's servers are attached to the same part of the network as mine. Now I always assumed that on a switch based network that this should not happen as the switch will only send data to the required host and not to every box attached. I assume in this case that other customers would also be able to see data going to my server. As well as potential privacy concerns, this would surely make ARP poising easy and allow others to steal IP addresses (and therefor domains and websites)? It would seem odd that a network provider would configure the network in such a way. Is there a more rational explanation here?

  Read the article

• Log connections to program

  - by Zac

  Besides for using iptables to log incoming connections.. Is there a way to log established inbound connections to a service that you don't have the source to (suppose the service doesn't log stuff like this on its own)? What I'm wanting to do is gather some information based on who's connecting to be able to tell things like what times of the day the service is being used the most, where in the world the main user base is, etc. I am aware I can use netstat and just hook it up to a cron script, but that might not be accurate, since the script could only run as frequently as a minute. Here is what I am thinking right now: Write a program that constantly polls netstat, looking for established connections that didn't appear in the previous poll. This idea seems like such a waste of cpu time though, since there may not be a new connection.. Write a wrapper program that accepts inbound connections on whatever port the service runs on, but then I wouldn't know how to pass that connection along to the real service. Edit: Just occurred to me that this question might be better for stackoverflow, though I am not certain. Sorry if this is the wrong place.

  Read the article

• Watchguard Firebox "split" fibre optic line into 2 interfaces

  - by fRAiLtY-

  We have a requirement on our Watchguard Firebox XTM505 to be able to split our incoming external interface, in this case a fibre optic dedicated leased line, 100/100. We use the line in our office of approx 30 machines however we also re-sell to an external company who utilise it to provide wireless internet solutions to the public. The current infrastructure is as follows: Data in (Leased Line) - Juniper SRX210 managed by ISP - 1 cable out into unmanaged Netgear switch - 1 cable into our firewall and office network, 1 cable to our external providers core router managed by them. We have been informed that having the unmanaged switch in the position it is poses a security risk and that a good option would be to get our Watchguard Firewall to perform the split, by separating our office onto a trusted interface, and by "passing through" the external line to their managed router. It is alleged that the Watchguard is capable of doing this and also rate limiting the interfaces, i.e. 20mbps for the trusted interface and 80mbps for the "pass-through", however Watchguard technical support don't seem to be able to understand what we're trying to achieve. Can anyone provide any advice on whether this is possible on a Watchguard device and how or perhaps if there's a better way of achieving this, perhaps with a managed switch instead of unmanaged? Cheers

  Read the article

• Linux iptables / conntrack performance issue

  - by tim

  I have a test-setup in the lab with 4 machines: 2 old P4 machines (t1, t2) 1 Xeon 5420 DP 2.5 GHz 8 GB RAM (t3) Intel e1000 1 Xeon 5420 DP 2.5 GHz 8 GB RAM (t4) Intel e1000 to test linux firewall performance since we got bitten by a number of syn-flood attacks in the last months. All machines run Ubuntu 12.04 64bit. t1, t2, t3 are interconnected through an 1GB/s switch, t4 is connected to t3 via an extra interface. So t3 simulates the firewall, t4 is the target, t1,t2 play the attackers generating a packetstorm thorugh (192.168.4.199 is t4): hping3 -I eth1 --rand-source --syn --flood 192.168.4.199 -p 80 t4 drops all incoming packets to avoid confusion with gateways, performance issues of t4 etc. I watch the packet stats in iptraf. I have configured the firewall (t3) as follows: stock 3.2.0-31-generic #50-Ubuntu SMP kernel rhash_entries=33554432 as kernel parameter sysctl as follows: net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 net.ipv4.route.gc_elasticity = 2 net.ipv4.route.gc_timeout = 1 net.ipv4.route.gc_interval = 5 net.ipv4.route.gc_min_interval_ms = 500 net.ipv4.route.gc_thresh = 2000000 net.ipv4.route.max_size = 20000000 (I have tweaked a lot to keep t3 running when t1+t2 are sending as many packets as possible). The result of this efforts are somewhat odd: t1+t2 manage to send each about 200k packets/s. t4 in the best case sees aroung 200k in total so half of the packets are lost. t3 is nearly unusable on console though packets are flowing through it (high numbers of soft-irqs) the route cache garbage collector is no way near to being predictable and in the default setting overwhelmed by very few packets/s (<50k packets/s) activating stateful iptables rules makes the packet rate arriving on t4 drop to around 100k packets/s, efectively losing more than 75% of the packets And this - here is my main concern - with two old P4 machines sending as many packets as they can - which means nearly everyone on the net should be capable of this. So here goes my question: Did I overlook some importand point in the config or in my test setup? Are there any alternatives for building firewall system especially on smp systems?

  Read the article

• Splitting an HTTP request into multiple byte-range requests

  - by redpola

  I have arrived at the unusual situation of having two completely independent Internet connections to my home. This has the advantage of redundancy etc but the drawback that both connections max out at about 6Mb/s. So one individual outbound http request is directed by my "intelligent gateway" (TP-LINK ER6120) out over one or the other connection for its lifetime. This works fine over complex web pages and utilises both external connects fine. However, single-http-request downloads are limited to the maximum rate of one of the two connections. So I'm thinking, surely I can setup some kind of proxy server to direct all my http requests to. For each incoming http request, the proxy server will issue multiple byte-range requests for the desired data and manage the reassembly and delivery of that data to the client's request. I can see this has some overhead, and also some edge cases where there will be blocking problems waiting for data. I also imagine webmasters of single-servers would rather I didn't hit them with 8 byte-range requests instead of one request. How can I achieve this http request deconstruct/reconstruction? Or am I just barking mad?

  Read the article

• Thunderbird 15.0.1 cannot use Exchange 2003 SMTP

  - by speedreeder

  I'm having the strangest time getting a Thunderbird email client to connect to my Exchange 2003 server. I got the incoming IMAP account set up no problem, and I can receive mail. However sending mail will not work no matter what SMTP settings I enter. After checking the server, the proper settings should be port 25 with no authentication or connection security, which I have entered. I can ping the hostname of the server from the client machine in question. The Thunderbird error message I get is: "Sending of message failed. The message could not be sent because the connection to SMTP server -hostname omitted- was lost in the middle of the transaction." So I went to the server and double checked the settings for Exchange's SMTP stuff. I have it correct. I tried to telnet (on the server) to localhost 25. It appears to connect and then disconnect immediately, no message, no nothing. When I telnet to other ports (POP-110 for example) I get proper connection messages and a stable connection. There are no firewalls on either the client or the server. There's a firewall on the network but LAN-LAN traffic is unrestricted. I can reproduce the Thunderbird error on a second client, and I can't get any client to be able to telnet in. Anyone have any ideas?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >