Search Results

Search found 6753 results on 271 pages for 'forward declaration'.

Page 63/271 | < Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >

• Pair programming with tmux and Vagrant

  - by neezer

  Does anyone have a clear step-by-step guide for setting up a shared tmux session on a Vagrant vbox that my coworkers (on our local office lan) could SSH into? The articles I've found online only seem to cover setting this up from machine to machine (no virtualbox setups), and I'm not very good at networking, so I haven't been able to extrapolate a solution... We're all running the latest Macs in our office, btw. Here's one article I've found but haven't been able to get working with Vagrant: http://blog.voxdolo.me/remote-pairing-with-vim-and-tmux.html EDIT: To clarify, I don't really know how I should be setting up Vagrant to allow me to SSH into it from a machine outside the one hosting the VM. The article above suggests that I add the tunnels host on my physical machine running the VM (here-on referred to as the MBP), so I did that. Next is the ProxyCommand host declaration, which I have also assumed should live on the MBP. So next I try SSHing into the MBP from a guest machine (another separate physical machine on my network), and that seems to work... but that only gets me into the MBP, not the Vagrant image running on the MBP. I normally login Vagrant image on the MBP via vagrant ssh (per the docs), and I know how to forward ports on the Vagrant VM to the MBP, but it's unclear to me how I could forward ports/SSH from the MBP to the Vagrant VM, which I assume I would need to do so that my guest machine could SSH in--through the MBP--to my Vagrant image. That, in a nutshell, is what I'm trying to accomplish. I do my development work in Vagrant VMs which keeps my MBP nice and clean of any dev-related cruft and also keeps my dev environments totally isolated from one another, yet I would like to start pair-programming with my coworkers via tmux, thus the reason why I've asked this question. I would like to accomplish all of this without setting up an additional user account on the MBP, or giving my coworkers access to my local user account on the MBP to get to my Vagrant VM, if that's at all possible.

  Read the article

• port forwarding problem

  - by Claudiu

  I want to set up an svn server on my computer, so it's available from anywhere. I think I set up the repository correctly, using CollabSVN. If I go to Repo-Browser with TortoiseSVN and point it to svn://localhost:3690, it shows the proper repository. The problem now is that I'm behind a router. My local IP is 192.168.1.45 . Doing svn://192.168.1.45:3690 also works. My global IP is, say, x.x.x.x. Just doing svn://x.x.x.x:3690 doesn't work, which makes sense, since I have to set up port forwarding. I'm using a Verizon router. Using their web interface (on 192.168.1.1) I added the following port forwarding rule: IP Address forward to: 192.168.1.45 Source Ports: Any Dest Ports: 3690 Forward to: 3690 Protocol: TCP However, even after applying this rule, going to svn://x.x.x.x:3690 doesn't work. It takes a few seconds to fail, then says that the connection couldn't be established because the server connected to didn't respond properly after a period of time. What's interesting is that a random port, like svn://x.x.x.x:36904 fails immediately, saying that the target machine actively refused the connection. So I figure that the forwarding rule did something, but not fully what was necessary. Any ideas on how to get this working? The router model is MI424-WR and the firmware version is 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.12.3. UPDATE: I also tried setting destination port to 45000, and still forwarding to 3690, in case something was wrong w/ the lower-numbered ports, but to no avail. I also tried port 80 to port 3690, still all in vain.

  Read the article

• Destination NAT Onto the Same Network from internal clients

  - by mivi

  I have a DSL router which acts as NAT (SNAT & DNAT). I have setup a server on internal network (10.0.0.2 at port 43201). DSL router was configured to "port forward" (or DNAT) all incoming connections to 10.0.0.2:43201. I created a virtual server for port forwarding on DSL router. I also added following iptables rules for port forwarding. iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i ppp_0_1_32_1 --dport 43201 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.0.2:43201 iptables -I FORWARD 1 -p tcp -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -d 10.0.0.2 --dport 43201 -j ACCEPT # ppp_0_1_32_1 is routers external interface. # routers internal IP address is 10.0.0.1 and server is setup at 10.0.0.2:43201 Problem is that connections coming from external IP addresses are able to access internal server using External IP address, but internal clients (under NAT) are not able to access server using external IP address. Example: http://<external_address>:43201 is working from external clients But, internal clients are not able to access using http://<external_address>:43201 This seems to be similar to the problem described in http://www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO/NAT-HOWTO-10.html (NAT HOW-TO Destination NAT Onto the Same Network). Firstly, I am not able to understand why is this a problem for internal clients? Secondly, what iptables rule will enable internal clients to access server using external IP address? Please suggest.

  Read the article

• How to reject messages to unknown user in sendmail cooperating with MS-Exchange?

  - by user71061

  Hi! I have an MS Exchange 2003 configured as a mail server for an organization. As this server is located in this organization internal network and I don't want to expose it directly over internet, I have second server - linux box with sendmail - configured as intelligent relay (it accept all messages from internet addressed to @my_domain, and forward it to internal Exchange serwer, and accepts all messages from this internal Exchange server and forward it over internet). This configuration work's fine, but I want to eliminate messages addressed to not exiting users as early as possible. Good solution could be Enabling on Exchange server function of filtering recipients together with "tar pitting", but in my case this dosn't solve problem, because before any message reach my Exchange server (which could eventually reject it), it has to be already accepted by sendmail server, sitting in front of this Exchange server. So, I want to configure my sendmail server in such a way, that during initial SMTP conversation it could query somehow my Exchange server checking whether recipient address is valid or not, and based on result of this query, accept or reject (possibly with some delay) incoming message in a very early phase. In fact, I have already solved this issue by writing my own, simple sendmail milter program which checks recipient address against text file with list of valid addresses. But this solution is not satisfying me any longer, because it requires frequent updates of this file, and due to lack of time/motivation/programming skills, I don't want to cope further with my source code, adding to it functionality of querying my Exchange server. Maybe I can achieve desired effect by configuring any component of already available linux software. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Selecting Interface for SSH Port Forwarding

  - by Eric Pruitt

  I have a server that we'll call hub-server.tld with three IP addresses 100.200.130.121, 100.200.130.122, and 100.200.130.123. I have three different machines that are behind a firewall, but I want to use SSH to port forward one machine to each IP address. For example: machine-one should listen for SSH on port 22 on 100.200.130.121, while machine-two should do the same on 100.200.130.122, and so on for different services on ports that may be the same across all of the machines. The SSH man page has -R [bind_address:]port:host:hostport listed I have gateway ports enabled, but when using -R with a specific IP address, server still listens on the port across all interfaces: machine-one: # ssh -NR 100.200.130.121:22:localhost:22 [email protected] hub-server.tld (Listens for SSH on port 2222): # netstat -tan | grep LISTEN tcp 0 0 100.200.130.121:2222 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 :::22 :::* LISTEN tcp 0 0 :::80 :::* LISTEN Is there a way to make SSH forward only connections on a specific IP address to machine-one so I can listen to port 22 on the other IP addresses at the same time, or will I have to do something with iptables? Here are all the lines in my ssh config that are not comments / defaults: Port 2222 Protocol 2 SyslogFacility AUTHPRIV PasswordAuthentication yes ChallengeResponseAuthentication no GSSAPIAuthentication no GSSAPICleanupCredentials no UsePAM yes AcceptEnv LANG LC_CTYPE LC_NUMERIC LC_TIME LC_COLLATE LC_MONETARY LC_MESSAGES AcceptEnv LC_PAPER LC_NAME LC_ADDRESS LC_TELEPHONE LC_MEASUREMENT AcceptEnv LC_IDENTIFICATION LC_ALL AllowTcpForwarding yes GatewayPorts yes X11Forwarding yes ClientAliveInterval 30 ClientAliveCountMax 1000000 UseDNS no Subsystem sftp /usr/libexec/openssh/sftp-server

  Read the article

• PTR and A record must match?

  - by somecallmemike

  RFC 1912 Section 2.1 states the following: Make sure your PTR and A records match. For every IP address, there should be a matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain. If a host is multi-homed, (more than one IP address) make sure that all IP addresses have a corresponding PTR record (not just the first one). Failure to have matching PTR and A records can cause loss of Internet services similar to not being registered in the DNS at all. Also, PTR records must point back to a valid A record, not a alias defined by a CNAME. It is highly recommended that you use some software which automates this checking, or generate your DNS data from a database which automatically creates consistent data. This does not make any sense to me, should an ISP keep matching A records for every PTR record? It seems to me that it's only important if the IP address that the PTR record describes is hosting a service that is sensitive to DNS being mismatched (such as email hosting). In that case the forward zone would be configured under a domain name (examples follow the format 'zone - record'): domain.tld -> mail IN A 1.2.3.4 And the PTR record would be configured to match: 3.2.1.in-addr.arpa -> 4 IN PTR mail.domain.tld. Would there be any reason for the ISP to host a forward lookup for an IP address on their network like this?: ispdomain.tld -> broadband-ip-1 IN A 1.2.3.4

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >