Search Results

Search found 3251 results on 131 pages for 'firewall'.

Page 8/131 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Exposing a WebServer behind a firewall without Port Forwarding

  - by pbreault

  We are deploying web applications in java using tomcat on client machines across the country. Once they are installed, we want to allow a remote access to these web applications through a central server, but we do not want our clients to have to open ports on their routers. Is there a way to tunnel the http traffic so that people connected to the central server can access the web applications that are behind a firewall ? The central server has a static ip address and we have full control over it. Right now, it is a windows box but it could be changed to a linux box if necessary. Our clients are running windows xp and up. We don't need to access the filesystem, we only want to access the web application through a browser. We have looked at reverse ssh tunneling but it shows scaling problem since every packet would have to pass through the central server.

  Read the article

• What tangible security are gained by blocking all but a few outgoing ports in a firewall

  - by Frankie Dintino

  Our current hardware firewall allows for blocking incoming and outgoing ports. We have two possibilities: Block certain troublesome ports (unsecured smtp, bittorrent, etc.) Block all but a few approved ports (http, https, ssh, imap-ssl, etc.) I see several downsides with option 2. Occasionally web servers are hosted on non-standard ports and we would have to deal with the resulting issues. Also, there is nothing preventing a malicious or unwanted service from being hosted on port 80, for instance. What are are the upsides?

  Read the article

• Firewall to block traffic to specific websites

  - by Ctroy

  I have recently switched from MAC to Windows Vista. I used to have LittleSnitch on Mac where I can create filters and disable browsing to other websites. I mean, I can create filters so that LittleSnitch will not send traffic to specific websites like Google Analytics etc. However, I cannot find a similar software on Windows. I tried Zone Alarm firewall, but it doesn't let you add filters to stop traffic to specific websites. Are there any software available on windows which are similar to LittleSnitch?

  Read the article

• Good 1U Rack Firewall

  - by AX1

  Hello, I'm trying to find a good 1U rack firewall at a reasonable price. Most pricing is completely out of space (thousands of dollars? Why?). I don't want to list all features I need/want (there are too many variations but I don't care about most of them) - I'm just looking for something simple and not overly expensive. I've looked at the WatchGuard XTM 505 which is more reasonably priced -- are there any other firewalls in that range or even less expensive that are good for a small company?

  Read the article

• PSAD Firewall/ UDP flood?

  - by Asad Moeen

  Well I'm actually trying to block a UDP Flood on the Application port because the string "getstatus" is causing my application to make large output due to a small input to the attacker's IP. I installed PSAD firewall to do the job. psad -S shows 3000,000 logged packets at the application port and top ports in Scan but does not block the IP of the attacker however other IP Addresses with small number of connections are dropped. I'm thinking that since output is also being made to the attacker, this is why its not getting blocked because iptables rate-limiting is also exactly doing the same thing and not blocking the IP where outgoing connection is also made. Any guesses why it won't work?

  Read the article

• How to know currently open ports on the Windows Firewall?

  - by QIU Quan

  On Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, I can know currently open ports on the Windows Firewall using the following command: netsh firewall show state However, on Windows 7 and Hyper-V Server 2008 R2, when I give that command, it says: No ports are currently open on all network interfaces. IMPORTANT: Command executed successfully. However, "netsh firewall" is deprecated; use "netsh advfirewall firewall" instead. Apparently there are ports open because services such as NetBIOS NS, Remote Desktop, and Hyper-V remote administration are functioning. I tried a few 'netsh advfirewall' show commands, but didn't get a way to find out which ports are permit by Windows Firewall. Knowing the currently open ports, I can be sure that I'm permitting necessary and sufficient traffic to pass in, no more, no less. Going through the whole set of advanced firewall rules is so tedious and error-prone. Is there a command on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 to do this efficiently?

  Read the article

• Is SmoothWall a good firewall alternative?

  - by Oden

  I found this linux distribution, called SmoothWall. I read its documentation and it looks pretty for me. The only problem is, that I'm not a big linux professional and I have also not a lot of experience but I want to know your thoughts about this "Firewall OS"! Can it be used for small-business environment, with 15-17 PC-s? I would use the server also as cache proxy. Is this a good idea? (I mean, using one server for two things)

  Read the article

• Configuring linux server firewall to allow access from a certain range of IP addresses

  - by eggman20

  Hi Guys, I'm new to linux server. I'm currently trying to get an Ubuntu 10.10 server up and running for the first time and I'm using Webmin for administration. I'm stuck on the setting up the firewall. What I need to do is to ONLY allow a range of IPs (e.g 128.171.21.1 - 128.171.21.100) to access the HTTP server and Webmin. I've seen a lot of tutorials but none of them fits what I needed. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• VMware virtual network adapters and Windows Firewall

  - by anonymous

  I am running VMware Workstation 7.1.4 on Windows 7 Enterprise SP1-U (x64). Aside from the physical network adapter, I have created a single virtual network adapter (VMware Virtual Ethernet Adapter for VMnet1) which is connected to (can be seen by) the host and the guests. My problem is, even after applying the "*NdisDeviceType = 1" tweak to the virtual adapter, making it disappear from the Network and Sharing Center, I still can't connect to programs running in the host from the guests, unless I specifically "allowed the program to communicate with the public network" using the Windows Firewall (which I don't want to do). This happens to all the programs and services running in the host (File and Printer Sharing, Database server, HTTP proxy, etc.) I am getting the impression that applying the "*NdisDeviceType = 1" tweak only hides a network from the Network and Sharing Center but not actually making it private. Any hints and suggestions?

  Read the article

• How to have internet connection over VPN while "Microsoft Firewall Client for ISA server" is running

  - by blocked

  I have the software mentioned in the title running on my machine. When I connect over VPN to my company's network, my internet connection gets borked, because somehow the ISA firewall blocks it. This is completely idiotic, because my work involves extensive use of the internet, so having to disconnect and reconnect continuously seriously cripples my productivity. (Meaning: I'm tearing my hair out here.) Can I have my VPN connection and somehow still have my internet connection too? I'm open to any solution.

  Read the article

• Opening firewall to incoming port 443

  - by jrdioko

  I recently set up the ufw firewall on a Linux machine so that outgoing connections are allowed, incoming connections are denied, and denied connections are logged. This seems to work fine for most cases, but I see many denied connections that are incoming on port 443 (many with IPs associated with Facebook). I can open that port to incoming connections, but first wanted to ask what these could be. Shouldn't HTTPS requests be initiated by me and be treated as outbound, not inbound connections? Is it typical to open incoming port 443 on consumer firewalls?

  Read the article

• configuring linux server firewall to allow acces on a certain range of IP addresses

  - by eggman20

  Hi Guys, I'm new to linux server. I'm currently trying to get an Ubuntu 10.10 server up and running for the first time and I'm using Webmin for administration. I'm stuck on the setting up the firewall. What I need to do is to ONLY allow a range of IPs (e.g 128.171.21.1 - 128.171.21.100) to access the HTTP server and Webmin. I've seen a lot of tutorials but none of them fits what I needed. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• configuring linux server firewall to allow acces on a certain range of IP addresses

  - by eggman20

  Hi Guys, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I'm currently trying to get an Ubuntu 10.10 server up and running for the first time and I'm using Webmin for administration. I'm stuck on the setting up the firewall. What I need to do is to ONLY allow a range of IPs (e.g 128.171.21.1 - 128.171.21.100) to access the HTTP server and Webmin. I've seen a lot of tutorials but none of them fits what I needed. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Would a switch be covered by a router's firewall

  - by Uh-yeah...

  So... Hopefully; this is the right place for this question. I need more Ethernet ports on my home network. Sadly, we already have an old router connected to the main router and we still need more ports. I feel dumb for asking; but, I just would like to double check. Would the devices connected to the switch be "protected" by the Main router's firewall? ? Up to this point I have assumed that was the case; but, a co-worker is convinced that is not the case [ I believe he is thinking of a situation in which the switch (un-managed) is before an access point]. [It would go modem to main router; main router then has the switch and old router connected to it.

  Read the article

• Single PC Satellite Office Firewall

  - by Carl

  We are setting up a small, single PC office about 200 miles away. We plan on getting a cable internet connection but need some advice on a sufficient firewall. We would like to keep it under $100 if possible. 2 options we are considering are: Cisco RVS4000 (got some bad reviews) Linksys WRT120N (running DD-WRT) We need the ability for VPN but other than that we don't need anything special. We just want to keep that PC as safe as possible but easily maintainable because most work will be done remotely. What suggestions or solutions can you recommend for this application?

  Read the article

• ??????????? Database Firewall ??????????

  - by ???02

  ??????????? Database Firewall ??????????SQL?????????????????SQL????????????WEB?????HTTP??????SQL??????????????????????????????????????????????SQL????????????????WEB??????????????????????????????????SQL??????????????????????Oracle Database Firewall????????????????????SQL?????SQL?????????·???????????????????????????????????Databese Firewall ???????????????Oracle Database Firewall???????????????????????????????·??SQL???????????????·Database ?????????????????·SQL??????Database??????·????·?????????????????????·Oracle Database Firewall ???????Oracle Databese Firewall ?????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????_DBFW????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????·?????????????????????3?????????????·???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ·???????????????????90?????????????????????????????????????????????????????·????????????????????????????????????????????????? ·???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Web????????????????????????????????????1~4????????????????????———?????———?????????????? 1.????????? : 2.??????(????) : 3.??????(????) : 4.??????? :———?????———?????????????? 1.????????? : ????????????????2.??????(????) :         2011?11?15? 13:00-14:303.??????(????) :         2011?11?17? 15:00-16:304.??????? : ?????????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????? Oracle Direct

  Read the article

• Watchguard Firewall WebBlocker Regular Expression for Multiple Domains?

  - by Eric

  I'm pretty sure this is really a regex question, so you can skip to REGEX QUESTION if you want to skip the background. Our primary firewall is a Watchguard X750e running Fireware XTM v11.2. We're using webblocker to block most of the categories, and I'm allowing needed sites as they arise. Some sites are simple to add as exceptions, like Pandora radio. That one is just a pattern matched exception with "padnora.com/" as the pattern. All traffic from anywhere on pandora.com is allowed. I'm running into trouble on more sophisticated domains that reference content off of their base domains. We'll take GrooveShark as a sample. If you go to http://grooveshark.com/ and view page source, you'll see hrefs referring to gs-cdn.net as well as grooveshar.com. So adding a WebBlocker exception to grooveshark.com/ is not effective, and I have to add a second rule allowing gs-cdn.net/ as well. I see that the WebBlocker allows regex rules, so what I'd like to do in situations like this is create a single regex rule that allows traffic to all the needed domains. REGEX QUESTION: I'd like to try a regex that matches grooveshark.com/ and gs-cdn.net/. If anybody can help me write that regex, I'd appreciate it. Here is what is in the WatchGuard documentation from that section: Regular expression Regular expression matches use a Perl-compatible regular expression to make a match. For example, .[onc][eor][gtm] matches .org, .net, .com, or any other three-letter combination of one letter from each bracket, in order. Be sure to drop the leading “http://” Supports wild cards used in shell script. For example, the expression “(www)?.watchguard.[com|org|net]” will match URL paths including www.watchguard.com, www.watchguard.net, and www.watchguard.org. Thanks all!

  Read the article

• DirectAccess Server firewall rules blocking ports

  - by StormPooper

  I have configured DirectAccess on my Server 2012 Essentials box and most of it works great - I can remotely access the server via RDP and the default IIS website on port 80. However, I can't access anything that uses other ports. For this example, the Team Foundation Server website. The only way to access it is by accessing http://localhost:8080/tfs on the server directly - even when using http://servername:8080/tfs or http://192.168.1.100:8080/tfs won't work. I've tried adding the ports to the NAT exceptions using Set-NetNatTransitionConfiguration –IPv4AddressPortPool and while that has allowed some ports used internally (Deluge, for example) it hasn't allowed me access to the URL. I think I've narrowed it down to the "DirectAccess Server Settings" Group Policy that is created when configuring DirectAccess. When I disable the link for this GPO, the TFS site works again, but the default IIS site stops working (but RDP still works). I already have rules in the firewall on the server for TFS and before enabling this Group Policy (so before configuring DirectAccess) I could access both sites. Does anybody have any suggestions for things I can change to allow access to both? I've uploaded the full GPO report and my Remote Access Configuration Summary for more details.

  Read the article

• pfsense 2.0.1 Firewall SMB Share not showing up under network

  - by atrueresistance

  I have a freenas NAS with a SMB share running at 192.168.2.2 of a 192.168.2.0/28 network. Gateway is 192.168.2.1. Originally this was running on a switch with my LAN, but now having upgraded to new hardware the Freenas has it's own port on the firewall. Before the switch the freenas would show up under Network on a windows 7 box and an OSX Lion box as freenas{wins} or CIFS shares on freenas{osx} so I know it doesn't have anything do to with the freenas. Here are my pfsense rules. ID Proto Source Port Destination Port Gateway Queue Schedule Description PASS TCP FREENAS net * LAN net 139 (NetBIOS-SSN) * none cifs lan passthrough PASS TCP FREENAS net * LAN net 389 (LDAP) * none cifs lan passthrough PASS TCP FREENAS net * LAN net 445 (MS DS) * none cifs lan passthrough PASS UDP FREENAS net * LAN net 137 (NetBIOS-NS) * none cifs lan passthrough PASS UDP FREENAS net * LAN net 138 (NetBIOS-DGM) * none cifs lan passthrough BLOCK * FREENAS net * LAN net * * none BLOCK * FREENAS net * OPTZONE net * * none BLOCK * FREENAS net * 192.168.2.1 * * none PASS * FREENAS net * * * * none BLOCK * * * * * * none I can connect if I use \\192.168.2.2 and enter the correct login details. I would just like this to show up on the network. Nothing in the log seems to be blocked when I filter by 192.168.2.2. What port am I missing for SMB to show up under the network and not have to connect by IP? ps. Do I really need the LDAP rule?

  Read the article

• Centos IPTables configuration for external firewall

  - by user137974

  Current setup Centos which is a Web, Mail (Postfix,Dovecot), FTP Server and Gateway with public ip and private ip (for LAN Gateway). We are planning to implement external firewall box and bring the server to LAN Please guide on configuring IPTables... Unable to receive mail and outgoing mail stays in postfix queue and is sent after delaying... The local ip of the server is 192.168.1.220 iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT DROP incoming HTTP iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 443 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 443 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT outgoing HTTP iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT FTP iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 --sport 1024:65535 -d 192.168.1.220 --dport 21 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.220 --sport 21 -d 0/0 --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 --sport 1024:65535 -d 192.168.1.220 --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.220 --sport 1024:65535 -d 0/0 --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT SMTP iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 --sport 1024:65535 -d 192.168.1.220 --dport 25 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.220 --sport 25 -d 0/0 --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.220 --sport 1024:65535 -d 0/0 --dport 25 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 --sport 25 -d 192.168.1.220 --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT POP3 iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -s 0/0 --sport 1024:65535 -d 192.168.1.220 --dport 110 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -s 192.168.1.220 --sport 110 -d 0/0 --dport 1024:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT

  Read the article

• suggestions for firewall/router project using *BSD or Linux

  - by Adeodatus

  Hi All, I have a project in mind and I'd love to hear some ideas on some open source solutions with COTS hardware. I have a few 24 and/or 48 port managed layer2 switches with customers potentially on each port (though its usually about 20-30). Right now the switch has a bridged network and backhaul the traffic to our core to a centralized DHCP server. I need to move them to a NAT solution and, while doing this, I'd like to protect the customers on each port from the customer traffic on the other ports. I also need to be able to port forward from the public side of the firewall/nat box to specific hardware on the inside of the nat machine (easy enough, I know). My first thoughts are to build an appliance-like box (the fewer moving parts the better) that can do filtering and NAT with rfc1918 an address range being handed out via a DHCP server on the appliance. A caching DNS server on the appliance would be a plus since we backhaul everything to the core. I'd like to run FreeBSD but I'm open. Now, to try to limit the broadcast traffic thats visible I was thinking of doing each port on the switch as a different vlan and have the switch do trunking to the private NIC on the FreeBSD/appliance. I'd probably need to do some magic on the freebsd NIC to get this working but it should. We have the parts to build these systems. So, does this make sense? Are there any other solutions out there that we don't have to spend money on but can use our parts to create something? Are there any good distros that could do this already (monowall)?? I may or may not admin this solution so a secure web configuration and management tool would be a plus in the other admins' minds. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Cisco Multi-DMZ firewall

  - by BParker

  I need to find a firewall that will give me 1 LAN port, and 5-7 DMZ ports. I have a requirement to replace some FreeBSD systems that are used to run some testing equipment. It is essential that the DMZ ports cannot communicate with each other, but the LAN port can communicate with everyone. That way a user on the LAN can connect to the test systems, but the test systems are isolated entirely and cannot interfere with each other. One of the DMZ's will be connected to a VMWare ESXi server, one to a standard server, and the rest to various types of equipment. The lan port will be connected to the corporate LAN switch. Sorry if i am a little vague, I am just trying to work all this out myself! Currently we have a FreeBSD configured, but the quad port NIC's are pretty expensive, and the PC itself is old, so i would prefer to replace it with a dedicate piece of kit which can do the same job, but more reliably! These test rigs are used all over the place, and get moved quite often, so i am aiming for Cisco kit for ease of configuration and reliability of the hardware itself. Thanks

  Read the article

• Choosing gateway router/firewall for small datacenter network [closed]

  - by rvs

  I'm choosing a gateway router/firewall for small internal network for medium-sized web service. Currently there are 5 servers in internal network, up to 50 http(s) requests/second, up to 1000 simultaneous connections, uplink is 100 Mbit. So, network is relatively small and not very busy and we don't like to buy some pricey monster like cisco or jupiper for this site. Instead we'd like to buy two affordable devices (one for spare), which can handle our workload now and some time in future (it might be up to 2x more in 1 year). I had some experience with Sonicwall NSA, but it seems to be too complex for this site (we don't need most of its features) and even too pricey when buying two of them. So, after some research I've come up with following options: Netgear Prosecure UTM Series (probably UTM25) Zyxel ZyWall Series (USG100 or USG200) Sonicwall TZ 210 Is this a good idea? All of the above seems to be more office products, not datacenter ones. Or we should stick with Sonicwall NSA? Does anyone have any hands-on experience with this models? Maybe some other advices? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Outbound ports to allow through firewall - core requirements

  - by dunxd

  This question was asked before, but in a rather general way. I'm asking more specifically based on my current requirements. We have a number of remote offices made up of a bunch of PCs and an ASA 5505 which is used as firewall and VPN termination point. In the offices we share the internet connection with one or more other organisations over whom we have very little control, asides from the config on the ASAs. For a bunch of reasons I'd like to lock down these ASA 5505s to only allow outbound traffic to ports used by applications we know we need. I'm putting a standard config to roll out to all the ASAs, and if we need to open up ports for the other orgs we can do it on request. But I want to leave open the most commonly required ports so we can get up and running without waiting on other folks technical staff to get back. I plan to allow the following TCP ports to support email and web access, which I know everyone will need: POP3 (110 and 995) HTTP (80 and 443) IMAP4 (143 and 993) SMTP (25 and and 465) The question really is, what other ports do I need to leave open to allow for "normal" working? I've seen UDP port 53 for DNS as one. Are there any others that would be worth opening up? Just to note - I'll also be setting up monitoring systems to keep an eye on the ports we do allow. Any of the above could be misused of course. We'll also back all this up with signed agreements. But I'm aiming for a technical solutions where I don't have to start out with the full requirements of everyone we share connections with. See also: outbound ports that are always open

  Read the article

• Outbound ports to allow through firewall

  - by dunxd

  This question was asked before, but in a rather general way. I'm asking more specifically based on my current requirements. We have a number of remote offices made up of a bunch of PCs and an ASA 5505 which is used as firewall and VPN termination point. In the offices we share the internet connection with one or more other organisations over whom we have very little control, asides from the config on the ASAs. For a bunch of reasons I'd like to lock down these ASA 5505s to only allow outbound traffic to ports used by applications we know we need. I'm putting a standard config to roll out to all the ASAs, and if we need to open up ports for the other orgs we can do it on request. But I want to leave open the most commonly required ports so we can get up and running without waiting on other folks technical staff to get back. I plan to allow the following TCP ports to support commonly required resources: POP3 (110 and 995) HTTP (80 and 443) IMAP4 (143 and 993) SMTP (25 and and 465) The question really is, what other ports do I need to leave open to allow for "normal" working. I've seen UDP port 53 for DNS as one. Are there any others that would be worth opening up? Just to note - I'll also be setting up monitoring systems to keep an eye on the ports we do allow. Any of the above could be misused of course. We'll also back all this up with signed agreements. But I'm aiming for a technical solutions where I don't have to start out with the full requirements of everyone we share connections with. See also: outbound ports that are always open

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >