Search Results

Search found 8979 results on 360 pages for 'dynamic routing'.

Page 74/360 | < Previous Page | 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81  | Next Page >

• Using a nat rule to translate 80/443 traffic to web server, but internal users cannot access it using external ip/domain name

  - by Josh

  I am using Cisco ASDM for ASA I have my internal network called soa. My outside interface is called outside. Let's say my outside IP given to me by my ISP isp is y.y.y.y I have a web server inside my network with a static ip of x.x.x.110. I have configured 2 static nat rules (one for http the other for https). Source is x.x.x.110. Interface is outside, service (http or https). Maybe I am doing this wrong, but when I run the packet tracer, I choose outside interface and for the source IP I used 8.8.8.8 and the destination ip is my outside IP address, y.y.y.y When I run that, it shows the packet traversing successfully, using 9 steps. For my other test, I switch to the soa interface, input an ip on that network, and leave the destination the same. This test comes up with 2 steps and then fails on my access list. When I see the rule that fails, it is my catch all which is source: any desitnation: any, service: ip action: deny. What rule do I need to make to allow my soa network access to go out and come back in by my external IP addess (using a domain name attached to that ip in my dns, of course)?

  Read the article

• IPv6 host route is deleted after PMTU expires

  - by SAPikachu

  I am experimenting my new IPv6 tunnel setup between my local Ubuntu box and a scratch Linode. I set up some docker containers, configured 6in4 tunnel server and IPv6 forwarding on the Linode: # uname -a Linux argo 3.15.4-x86_64-linode45 #1 SMP Mon Jul 7 08:42:36 EDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # ip addr .. snipped .. 48: sit-sapikachu: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1472 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default link/sit 106.185.41.115 peer 1.2.3.4 inet6 fd00::1/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::6ab9:2973/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 13: docker0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default link/ether 56:84:7a:fe:97:99 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 172.17.42.1/16 scope global docker0 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fc00::1/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::5484:7aff:fefe:9799/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever // Docker containers are bridged to docker0 On my local box, I configured a 6in4 tunnel interface to connect to the Linode box, and added a host route to one of the docker container: # uname -a Linux sapikachu-netbox 3.13.0-24-generic #47-Ubuntu SMP Fri May 2 23:30:00 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # ip addr .. snipped .. 16: sit-argo: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1480 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default link/sit 0.0.0.0 peer 106.185.41.115 inet6 fd00::2/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::a97:302/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::ac19:1/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::c0a8:1f0/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::c0a8:1fa/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether *** brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff .. snipped .. inet6 fd00:0:1::1/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::2e0:6fff:fe0e:365e/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever # ip route replace fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d via fd00::1 # Add route to docker container # ip -6 route .. snipped unrelated routes fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d via fd00::1 dev sit-argo metric 1024 expires 590sec mtu 1472 fd00::/64 dev sit-argo proto kernel metric 256 fd00:0:1::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 fe80::/64 dev sit-argo proto kernel metric 256 (Note that tunnel MTU on my local box is different from the server, this is intentional for testing) After adding the host route to the docker container (fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d), I can ping the container without problem until the route expires. After that I couldn't get reply any more. If I run ip -6 route in a few seconds after expiration, expiration time of the host route will be a negative number: fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d via fd00::1 dev sit-argo metric 1024 expires -1sec And output of ip route get fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d shows that it is routed to my default IPv6 gateway (which fails to route it correctly of course, since the address is not globally routable). After some time, the host route disappears without a trace. This problem won't happen if I do either one of the following things: Set MTU of tunnel on my local box to be the same as the server (1472). The route won't have expiration time in both ip -6 route and ip route get in this case. Instead of adding a host route, add a route with network mask (even /127 works). In this case ip -6 route shows the route without expiration time, ip route get shows expiration time but it will be correctly refreshed after expiration. Although this problem can be easily resolved, I am curious to know why this happens. Is there error in my configuration, or is this a kernel bug?

  Read the article

• Remotedesktop to windows 2008 server with 2 nics

  - by The_Mo

  Hi I have 2 NICs on a Windows 2008 R2 Server. nic1 with ip address 192.168.2.1 with gatewaty 192.168.2.254 and nic2 with ip address 10.96.6.253 with no gateway. The windows 2008 server is connected to a router which is connnected to another router so if I want to connect to the windows 2008 server I use 192.168.0.31 because it is forwarded. If I use remote desktop to connect to that machine I use 192.168.0.31 and that works well, but the server has a seccond nic and I want to be able to connect with a remotedesktop to nic2. Any help appreciated! [server windows 2008 r2 192.168.2.1] -- [router 192.168.2.254/192.168.0.31] -- [my computer 192.168.0.13 gateway 192.168.0.254]

  Read the article

• route to vpn based on destination

  - by inquam

  I have a VPN connection on a Windows 7 machine. It's set up to connect to a server in US. Is it possible, and if so how, to setup so that .com destinations uses the vpn interface and .se destinations uses the "normal" connection? Edit (clarification): This is for outbound connections. I.e. the machine conencts to a server on foo.com and uses the VPN and the machine connects to bar.se and uses the "normal" interface. Let's say foo.com has an IP filter that ensures users are located in USA, if I go through the VPN I get a US ip and everything is fine. But tif all traffic goes this way the bar.se server that has a IP filter ensuring users are in Sweden will complain. So I want to route the traffic depending on server location. US servers through VPN and others through the normal interface.

  Read the article

• How two use 2 subnets on one network

  - by BGuy2010

  I have some servers at a colocation. They've given us an IP range,subnet,and gateway. Now we have run out of IP's and they've given us a new range of IP's but with a different subnet and gateway. We have a Juniper NetScreen firewall and a load balancer, and I am not sure how to proceed in order to be able to use these new IPS that are on a different subnet. Do I need to setup a new VLAN? on our firewall? I tried adding one of the new IP's on one of our servers, with the new subnet and gateway. I could ping the alternate gateway, but could not ping the assigned IP from outside or from inside.

  Read the article

• How can I reroute a sub-domain to localhost + port number?

  - by urig

  I have several web applications running on my developer machine. They mimic our production web applications which are hosted on sub-domain. For example, consider: api.myserver.com - is mimicked by 127.0.0.1:8000 www.myserver.com - is mimicked by 127.0.0.1:8008 and so on... How can I make it so that, on my Windows 7 machine, HTTP calls to "api.myserver.com" (note the lack of port number) are redirected to 127.0.0.1:8000 etc? Note that this needs to apply both to client-side calls (in the browser) and server-side calls (from IIS to Python development server and vice versa). Do I need a proxy to run locally to achieve this? Can you recommend such a tool?

  Read the article

• How do I route traffic to website using a spcified network connection on Windows 7

  - by rwetzeler

  I want to route all traffic to a website over my wireless connection while the rest of the traffic using my lan. What I tried was first finding out the IP address of the website I want to go to. For example, lets say pandora.com. I found it resolves to 208.85.40.20. I have entered that entry into my hosts file. I then added that route using route add 208.85.40.20 mask 255.255.255.255 WirelessIP. It doesn't seem to work however. Instead of using the IP address, is there a way that I can just say.. this URL to route over that connection? Does anyone know of a program that I can install that will do this.. possibly some sort of proxy or a software load balancer that can do this?

  Read the article

• Remote network traffic not passing through VPN

  - by John Virgolino

  We have the following topology: LAN A LAN B LAN C 10.14.0.0/16 <-VPN-> 10.18.0.0/16 --- SONICWALL <-VPN-> M0N0WALL --- 10.32.0.0/16 Traffic between LAN A and LAN B works perfectly. Traffic between LAN C and LAN B works perfectly. Traffic between LAN A and LAN C, not so much. LAN A's gateway has a route to LAN C that points to the Sonicwall. The Sonicwall has a route to LAN A pointing to the VPN gateway connecting LAN B to LAN A. Tracing packets on the Sonicwall shows the LAN C destined traffic to arrive on the Sonicwall, but it does not forward the traffic, it dies there. Traffic from LAN B gets forwarded. Tracing packets on the Sonicwall while sending traffic from LAN C destined for LAN A shows nothing. This tells me that the M0N0WALL is not forwarding traffic for the 10.14.0.0 network and the Sonicwall is not forwarding from 10.14.0.0. The SA on the Sonicwall terminates on the WAN ZONE and is defined to use an address group that incorporates both the 10.14.0.0 and 10.18.0.0 networks. The M0N0WALL is configured for the 10.18.0.0 network and I have tried with both a static route to 10.14.0.0 and without on the M0N0WALL. I tried manually adding the 10.14.0.0 network to the SA on the M0N0WALL, but that really aggravated it and the SA never came up, so I reverted. I have checked all the firewall rules to make sure nothing is blocked. All of the Sonicwall auto-added rules look right. Specs: Sonicwall TZ200, Enhanced OS M0N0WALL v1.32 I'm at a loss at this point. Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Nginx fastcgi problems with django (double slashes in url?)

  - by wizard

  I'm deploying my first django app. I'm familiar with nginx and fastcgi from deploying php-fpm. I can't get python to recognize the urls. I'm also at a loss on how to debug this further. I'd welcome solutions to this problem and tips on debugging fastcgi problems. Currently I get a 404 page regardless of the url and for some reason a double slash For http://www.site.com/admin/ Page not found (404) Request Method: GET Request URL: http://www.site.com/admin// My urls.py from the debug output - which work in the dev server. Using the URLconf defined in ahrlty.urls, Django tried these URL patterns, in this order: ^listings/ ^admin/ ^accounts/login/$ ^accounts/logout/$ my nginx config server { listen 80; server_name beta.ahrlty.com; access_log /home/ahrlty/ahrlty/logs/access.log; error_log /home/ahrlty/ahrlty/logs/error.log; location /static/ { alias /home/ahrlty/ahrlty/ahrlty/static/; break; } location /media/ { alias /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/django/contrib/admin/media/; break; } location / { include /etc/nginx/fastcgi_params; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:8001; break; } } and my fastcgi_params fastcgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string; fastcgi_param REQUEST_METHOD $request_method; fastcgi_param CONTENT_TYPE $content_type; fastcgi_param CONTENT_LENGTH $content_length; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_NAME $fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param REQUEST_URI $request_uri; fastcgi_param DOCUMENT_URI $document_uri; fastcgi_param DOCUMENT_ROOT $document_root; fastcgi_param SERVER_PROTOCOL $server_protocol; fastcgi_param GATEWAY_INTERFACE CGI/1.1; fastcgi_param SERVER_SOFTWARE nginx/$nginx_version; fastcgi_param REMOTE_ADDR $remote_addr; fastcgi_param REMOTE_PORT $remote_port; fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR $server_addr; fastcgi_param SERVER_PORT $server_port; fastcgi_param SERVER_NAME $server_name; fastcgi_param PATH_INFO $fastcgi_script_name; # PHP only, required if PHP was built with --enable-force-cgi-redirect fastcgi_param REDIRECT_STATUS 200; And lastly I'm running fastcgi from the commandline with django's manage.py. python manage.py runfcgi method=threaded host=127.0.0.1 port=8080 pidfile=mysite.pid minspare=4 maxspare=30 daemonize=false I'm having a hard time debugging this one. Does anything jump out at anybody? Notes nginx version: nginx/0.7.62 Django svn trunk rev 13013

  Read the article

• Have servers behind OpenVPN subnet reach connecting clients

  - by imaginative

  I am trying to find some relevant documentation or what directives I need in either the OpenVPN server configuration or client configuration to accommodate for this use case. I have an OpenVPN server that clients connect to. The OpenVPN server can communicate directly with any of the clients already, this is not an issue. The client is able to reach any machine on the private subnet where OpenVPN resides, this is also not an issue. My issue is that the reverse is currently not possible - I have servers on the same subnet as the OpenVPN box that cannot reach any of the connecting clients. I'd like to be able to SSH to them and more, the same way the client can reach the servers behind the OpenVPN subnet. What do I need to do to make this possible? I already have masquerading rules set on the OpenVPN box: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.50.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE IP Forwarding is enabled: echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward I added a route on the server behind the private subnet to be aware of the route: 192.168.50.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 What am I missing?

  Read the article

• A can ping B, B can ping C but A cant ping C. How do i connect A to C (ethernet)?

  - by user16654

  I have a computer at home with ip 192.168.221.xxx I have another computer at work that I can ping and it has 2 ip addresses: 192.168.1.xxx and 192.168.0.xxx. Those last 2 addresses have the same gateway ie 192.168.1.1 . The computer at work is connected to a hub. That hub also has an embedded device connected to it with address 192.168.0.xxx Now from my home computer I cannot ping this embedded device. How would I connect to it without changing the subnetwork it connects to? I can ping the embedded device from my work computer and I can ping the work computer from my home computer. So I am trying to connect to the embedded device from my home computer through my work computer. Port forwarding? how would I establish that on Ubuntu?

  Read the article

• Add a server between router and switch (production)

  - by Kossel

  I have a small office network basically like below, there are more router/pc connected in S1. As you can see, the router is doing job of DHCP, DNS. but now I wish to add a Linux server between R1 and S1, So I can monitor the network traffic and do other more advance server admin stuff. the whole office network is 192.168.1.x and people are using their computer everyday. What network configuration should the new Linux server have (both interfaces) in order to minimize the changes need in the network? tried to change R1 ip to 192.168.100.1 them add the server with FE0/0 192.168.100.1 and FE0/1 192.168.1.1 but looks cannot ping the original Router..

  Read the article

• OpenVZ multiple networks on CTs

  - by user6733

  I have Hardware Node (HN) which has 2 physical interfaces (eth0, eth1). I'm playing with OpenVZ and want to let my containers (CTs) have access to both of those interfaces. I'm using basic configuration - venet. CTs are fine to access eth0 (public interface). But I can't get CTs to get access to eth1 (private network). I tried: # on HN vzctl set 101 --ipadd 192.168.1.101 --save vzctl enter 101 ping 192.168.1.2 # no response here ifconfig # on CT returns lo (127.0.0.1), venet0 (127.0.0.1), venet0:0 (95.168.xxx.xxx), venet0:1 (192.168.1.101) I believe that the main problem is that all packets flows through eth0 on HN (figured out using tcpdump). So the problem might be in routes on HN. Or is my logic here all wrong? I just need access to both interfaces (networks) on HN from CTs. Nothing complicated.

  Read the article

• Network topology for both direct and routed traffic between two nodes

  - by IndigoFire

  Despite it's small size, this is the most difficult network design problem I've faced. There are three nodes in this network: PC running Windows XP with an internal WiFi adapter.Base station with both WiFi and a Wireless Modem (WiModem)Mobile device with both WiFi and WiModem The modem is a low-bandwidth but high-reliability connection. We'd like to use WiFi for high-bandwidth stuff like file transfers when the mobile is nearby, and the modem for control information. Here's the tricky part: we'd like the wifi traffic to go directly from the mobile to the PC, as rebroadcasting packets on the same WiFi channel takes up double the bandwidth. We can do that with a manual configuration by giving the both the PC and the base station two IP addresses for their WiFi interfaces: one on a subnet shared with the mobile, and one on their own subnet. The routes on the PC are set up so that any traffic going to the mobile via WiModem goes through the secondary IP address so that return traffic from the mobile also goes through the WiModem. Here's what that looks like: PC WiFi 1: 192.168.2.10/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.10/24 Default route: 192.168.2.1 Base Station WiFi 1: 192.168.2.1/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.1/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.1/24 Mobile WiFi: 192.168.3.20/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.20/24 We'd like to move to having the base station automatically configure the mobile and PC, as the manual setup is problematic when you start having multiple mobiles and PCs. This means that the PC can only have 1 IP address and needs to be treated as being pretty simple. Is it possible to have a setup driven by DHCP on the base station that is efficient with bandwidth?

  Read the article

• OpenVPN access to a private network

  - by Gior312

  There are many similar topics about my issue, however I cannot figure out a solution for myself. There are three hosts. A without a routable address but with an Internet access. Server S with a routable Internet address and host B behind NAT in a private network. What I've managed to do is a OpenVPN connection between A and B via S. Everything works fine so far according to this manual VPN Setup What I want to do is to connect A to Bs private network 10.A.B.x I tried this manual but had no luck. So A has a vpn address 10.9.0.10, B's vpn address is 10.9.0.6 and B's private network is 10.20.20.0/24. When at the Server I try to make a route to Bs private network like this sudo route add 10.20.20.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.9.0.6 dev tun0 it says "route: netmask 000000ff doesn't make sense with host route" but I don't know how to tell Server to look for a private network in a different way. Do you know how can I make it right ?

  Read the article

• Share the same subnet between Internal network and VPN Clients

  - by Pascal

  I would like to set up a configuration where VPN clients connecting to my Forefront TMG can access all the resources of my Internal network without having the to use the option "Use default gateway on remote network" on the VPN's TCP/IP Ipv4 Advanced Settings. This is important to me, since they can use their own internet while accessing my network through VPN (the security implications of this are acceptable on my cenario) My Internal network runs on 10.50.75.x, and I set up Forefront TMG to relay the DHCP of my Internal network to the VPN clients, so they get IPs from the same range as the Internal network. This setup initially works, and the VPN clients use their own internet, and can access anything that is on the internal network. However, after a while, HTTP Proxy Traffic from the Internal network starts getting routed to the IP of the RRAS Dial In Interface, instead of the IP of the Internal's network gateway. When this happens, the HTTP Proxy starts getting denied for obvious reasons. My first question is: does this happen because Forefront TMG wasn't designed to handle a cenario that I described above, and it "loses itself"? My second question is: Is there any way to solve this problem, either through configuration or firewall policies? My third question is: If there's no way that it can work with the cenario above, is there another cenario that will solve my problem, and do what I'd like it to do properly? Below are my network routes: 1 => Local Host Access => Route => Local Host => All Networks 2 => VPN Clients to Internal Network => Route => VPN Clients => Internal 3 => Internet Access => NAT => Internal, Perimeter, VPN Clients => External 4 => Internal to Perimeter => Route => Internal, VPN Clients => Perimeter Tks!

  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

• Hopping a VPN Tunnel

  - by lellouch

  My central office and remote offices are connected to each other over site to site ipsec vpn. We use Fortigate firewalls and everything is working fine. On the other hand, only central office is also connected to another company's network over ipsec vpn as well. In this situation, everything is also fine and employees at the central office is able to reach the other company's resources without problem. Now i want the employees working on our remote office can reach the other company's network over central office without creating new vpn tunnels. http://imgur.com/ozrXfGv How can i do that? Thanks for your answers in advance.

  Read the article

• Prevent Linux from processing incoming ICMP Host unreachable packets

  - by bbc

  I have a test setup with one host on a network (10.1.0.0/16) talking via TCP to another one on another network (10.2.0.0/16) and a gateway in the middle. Sometimes, the TCP connection is lost and while scanning the trace (pcap), I looks like it's because of just one ICMP Host unreachable message sent by the gateway to 10.1.0.1 at some point. 10.1.0.1 then sends a TCP RST to 10.2.0.1. In my opinion, the gateway (pfSense) is broken or not configured correctly but anyway, for testing purposes, I'd like to block this kind of ICMP on the host (10.1.0.1) before it has an influence on my TCP connection (or does it? I'm not even sure). I've tried iptables: iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p icmp --icmp-type host-unreachable -j DROP but while it does a good job at preventing userpace applications like ping from receiving these ICMP messages, my TCP connection still comes to an end when the alleged "killer ICMP packet" is sent by the gateway. Am I right about how it is processed? If yes, then what can I do to achieve my goal?

  Read the article

• Python: how to calculate data received and send between two ipaddresses and ports [closed]

  - by ramdaz

  I guess it's socket programming. But I have never done socket programming expect for running the tutorial examples while learning Python. I need some more ideas to implement this. What I specifically need is to run a monitoring program of a server which will poll or listen to traffic being exchange from different IPs across different popular ports. For example, how do I get data received and sent through port 80 of 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.1 ( which is the gateway). I checked out a number of ready made tools like MRTG, Bwmon, Ntop etc but since we are looking at doing some specific pattern studies, we need to do data capturing within the program. Idea is to monitor some popular ports and do a study of network traffic across some periods and compare them with some other data. We would like to figure a way to do all this with Python....

  Read the article

• one of my web hostings is down - only for me - why ?

  - by Thomas Traub

  My first post here, I am reading / learning a lot, thanks ;). I've got a mysterious issue (for me) and would really appreciate to get it solved. I've rent a reseller package with bibihost.com and it's now the second time that all my domaines the hoster's site are unavailable from my connection (my Mac and my iPhone), (in browser, per FTP, ping, ab, and traceroute) This has never before happened to me with other web addresses. traceroute get's always stuck at a specific server 40g.vss-1-6k.routers.chtix.eu (91.121.131.29) The sites are all up for everyone else, I've checked with downforeveryoneorjustme.com, a homegrown script loaded to another server and montastic.com My question(s) : Why am I blocked ? Is there anything I can do about it ? If I cannot solve this issue I have to change the hoster, but I really would like to know what's going on. my domaines on this server : tienstiens.fr tomlegrand.com

  Read the article

• Packets marked INVALID in FORWARD rule

  - by Raphink

  I have a firewall that has 3 IP aliases on 1 physical interface. Packets get dropped between these 3 interfaces (either ICMP, HTTP, or anything else). We tracked it down to these packets being marked INVALID in the FORWARD rule and dropped due to the this rule: chain FORWARD { policy DROP; # connection tracking mod state state INVALID LOG log-prefix 'INVALID FORWARD DROP: '; mod state state INVALID DROP; mod state state (ESTABLISHED RELATED) ACCEPT; } (That is, we see the INVALID FORWARD DROP logs in dmesg) What could be causing this?

  Read the article

• How to open a server port outside of an OpenVPN tunnel with a pf firewall on OSX (BSD)

  - by Timbo

  I have a Mac mini that I use as a media server running XBMC and serves media from my NAS to my stereo and TV (which has been color calibrated with a Spyder3Express, happy). The Mac runs OSX 10.8.2 and the internet connection is tunneled for general privacy over OpenVPN through Tunnelblick. I believe my anonymous VPN provider pushes "redirect_gateway" to OpenVPN/Tunnelblick because when on it effectively tunnels all non-LAN traffic in- and outbound. As an unwanted side effect that also opens the boxes server ports unprotected to the outside world and bypasses my firewall-router (Netgear SRX5308). I have run nmap from outside the LAN on the VPN IP and the server ports on the mini are clearly visible and connectable. The mini has the following ports open: ssh/22, ARD/5900 and 8080+9090 for the XBMC iOS client Constellation. I also have Synology NAS which apart from LAN file serving over AFP and WebDAV only serves up an OpenVPN/1194 and a PPTP/1732 server. When outside of the LAN I connect to this from my laptop over OpenVPN and over PPTP from my iPhone. I only want to connect through AFP/548 from the mini to the NAS. The border firewall (SRX5308) just works excellently, stable and with a very high throughput when streaming from various VOD services. My connection is a 100/10 with a close to theoretical max throughput. The ruleset is as follows Inbound: PPTP/1723 Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS/VPN server) from a restricted IP range >corresponding to possible cell provider range OpenVPN/1194 Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS/VPN server) from any Outbound: Default outbound policy: Allow Always OpenVPN/1194 TCP Allow always from 10.0.0.40 (NAS) to a.b.8.1-a.b.8.254 (VPN provider) OpenVPN/1194 UDP Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) to a.b.8.1-a.b.8.254 (VPN provider) Block always from NAS to any On the Mini I have disabled the OSX Application Level Firewall because it throws popups which don't remember my choices from one time to another and that's annoying on a media server. Instead I run Little Snitch which controls outgoing connections nicely on an application level. I have configured the excellent OSX builtin firewall pf (from BSD) as follows pf.conf (Apple App firewall tie-ins removed) (# replaced with % to avoid formatting errors) ### macro name for external interface. eth_if = "en0" vpn_if = "tap0" ### wifi_if = "en1" ### %usb_if = "en3" ext_if = $eth_if LAN="{10.0.0.0/24}" ### General housekeeping rules ### ### Drop all blocked packets silently set block-policy drop ### all incoming traffic on external interface is normalized and fragmented ### packets are reassembled. scrub in on $ext_if all fragment reassemble scrub in on $vpn_if all fragment reassemble scrub out all ### exercise antispoofing on the external interface, but add the local ### loopback interface as an exception, to prevent services utilizing the ### local loop from being blocked accidentally. ### set skip on lo0 antispoof for $ext_if inet antispoof for $vpn_if inet ### spoofing protection for all interfaces block in quick from urpf-failed ############################# block all ### Access to the mini server over ssh/22 and remote desktop/5900 from LAN/en0 only pass in on $eth_if proto tcp from $LAN to any port {22, 5900, 8080, 9090} ### Allow all udp and icmp also, necessary for Constellation. Could be tightened. pass on $eth_if proto {udp, icmp} from $LAN to any ### Allow AFP to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) pass out on $eth_if proto tcp from any to 10.0.0.40 port 548 ### Allow OpenVPN tunnel setup over unprotected link (en0) only to VPN provider IPs ### and port ranges pass on $eth_if proto tcp from any to a.b.8.0/24 port 1194:1201 ### OpenVPN Tunnel rules. All traffic allowed out, only in to ports 4100-4110 ### Outgoing pings ok pass in on $vpn_if proto {tcp, udp} from any to any port 4100:4110 pass out on $vpn_if proto {tcp, udp, icmp} from any to any So what are my goals and what does the above setup achieve? (until you tell me otherwise :) 1) Full LAN access to the above ports on the mini/media server (including through my own VPN server) 2) All internet traffic from the mini/media server is anonymized and tunneled over VPN 3) If OpenVPN/Tunnelblick on the mini drops the connection, nothing is leaked both because of pf and the router outgoing ruleset. It can't even do a DNS lookup through the router. So what do I have to hide with all this? Nothing much really, I just got carried away trying to stop port scans through the VPN tunnel :) In any case this setup works perfectly and it is very stable. The Problem at last! I want to run a minecraft server and I installed that on a separate user account on the mini server (user=mc) to keep things partitioned. I don't want this server accessible through the anonymized VPN tunnel because there are lots more port scans and hacking attempts through that than over my regular IP and I don't trust java in general. So I added the following pf rule on the mini: ### Allow Minecraft public through user mc pass in on $eth_if proto {tcp,udp} from any to any port 24983 user mc pass out on $eth_if proto {tcp, udp} from any to any user mc And these additions on the border firewall: Inbound: Allow always TCP/UDP from any to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) Outbound: Allow always TCP port 80 from 10.0.0.40 to any (needed for online account checkups) This works fine but only when the OpenVPN/Tunnelblick tunnel is down. When up no connection is possbile to the minecraft server from outside of LAN. inside LAN is always OK. Everything else functions as intended. I believe the redirect_gateway push is close to the root of the problem, but I want to keep that specific VPN provider because of the fantastic throughput, price and service. The Solution? How can I open up the minecraft server port outside of the tunnel so it's only available over en0 not the VPN tunnel? Should I a static route? But I don't know which IPs will be connecting...stumbles How secure would to estimate this setup to be and do you have other improvements to share? I've searched extensively in the last few days to no avail...If you've read this far I bet you know the answer :)

  Read the article

• Ping reply not getting to LAN machines but getting in Linux router Gateway

  - by Kevin Parker

  I have configured Ubuntu 12.04 as Gateway machine.its having two interfaces eth0 with ip 192.168.122.39(Static) and eth1 connected to modem with ip address 192.168.2.3(through DHCP). ip-forwarding is enabled in router box. Client machine is configured as: ip address 192.168.122.5 and gateway 192.168.122.39 Client machines can ping router box(192.168.122.39).but when pinged 8.8.8.8 reply is not reaching Client machines but in the tcpdump output on gateway i can see echo request for 8.8.8.8 but never echo reply.Is this because of 122.5 not forwarding request to 2.0 network.Can u please help me in fixing this.

  Read the article

• Problem with connecting two different networks

  - by tanascius

  I have two networks: 192.168.13.0/24 (blue) and 192.168.15.0/24 (green). Computer A is connected to the 13-net, only. Computer B has two interfaces, one in each network. There is third computer that acts like a router and connects the 13-net to the 15-net (only in this direction). Now, I'd like to ping 192.168.15.100 from computer A to B. Unfortunately there is never a reply. But when I use a hub instead of a switch it works. In my opinion the ping packet travels through the switch to the router (which is the default route/gateway for A). The router sends the packet back to the switch to B. Probably B receives it on its 15-net interface but answers with it's 15th interface? Is this possible? The problem is, that B may have only a gateway 192.168.13.50 - but I am not really sure of it (B is a embedded system with limited configuration possibilities). Can anyone explain what happens here? Thank you!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81  | Next Page >