Search Results

Search found 12283 results on 492 pages for 'tcp port'.

Page 8/492 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • .htaccess redirect to error page if port is not 80

    - by Momo
    I'm running a portable server through usb stick. The thing is I also have WAMP installed in my local machine and Apache somehow gets started on windows startup, because of some random reason which I don't recall now and it can't be changed. I want to prepare my portable server in situations like this, so closing httpd.exe from process and starting my portable server is not an option. Anyway, because of already active httpd.exe my portable server's WordPress site can only be accessed through localhost:81 - this is a problem as WP site is very dependent on the URL and I don't want to include the url with port on WP database. Here is what I want to do through .htaccess: On any path except for error.php file check if not port 80 If not port 80 redirect to /error.php?code=port It it possible for it to have priority over WP redirection or URL handling? In the error.php I provided info on how to manually close httpd.exe and such so my family and friends can access the portable site. It's sort of like a gallery and calender application for events and other such stuff... Please help? I'm I can't figure it out at all. I know others may not have apache already running, but I want to prepare for such a situation. Something like the following, but the following doesn't work. # BEGIN WordPress <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> <If "%{SERVER_PORT} = 80"> RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] </If> <Else> RewriteEngine On RewriteRule ^(error.php)($|/) - [L] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /error.php?code=port [L] </Else> </IfModule> # END WordPress By the way, the portable server Server2Go automatically generates vhosts based o the hostname set on it's config file and changes ports if the port (e.g. 80) is already open.

    Read the article

  • Setting up port forwarding for web server

    - by reyjavikvi
    This could belong on Super User, but I thought this place was more appropiate. I want to run Apache in my computer and want to make it available to the outside world to test a couple things. Apparently, I have to go into my router's (a TP-LINK TD 8910G) settings and forward port 80 to my PC's IP. So far so good. Thing is, since the router uses a web based interface and it's kind of stupid, it told me that since I was using port 80 for this, I should access its settings through port 8080. Maybe it can't detect requests coming from the LAN, I don't know. Point is, now neither port can't access the configuration, and I can't access Internet. Specifically, trying to access anything (including 192.168.1.1, the router's settings) through port 80 turns up a blank page (maybe if I had the server running in my computer I'd get something, but I don't want to risk trying, I had to reset the router and restore the settings), and port 8080 gives a "Can't establish connection" error in Firefox (and similar ones in other browsers). Is there a way to configure the router to not redirect requests coming from inside the network? I'm a beginner with this stuff, so please try to explain in a simple way. If this is more appropiate in Super User, I'm sorry.

    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

  • Howto disable SSH local port forwarding ?

    - by SCO
    I have a server running Ubuntu and the OpenSSH daemon. Let's call it S1. I use this server from client machines (let's call one of them C1) to do an SSH reverse tunnel by using remote port forwarding, eg : ssh -R 1234:localhost:23 login@S1 On S1, I use the default sshd_config file. From what I can see, anyone having the right credentials {login,pwd} on S1 can log into S1 and either do remote port forwarding and local port forwarding. Such credentials could be a certificate in the future, so in my understanding anyone grabbing the certificate can log into S1 from anywhere else (not necessarily C1) and hence create local port forwardings. To me, allowing local port forwarding is too dangerous, since it allows to create some kind of public proxy. I'm looking for a way tto disable only -L forwardings. I tried the following, but this disables both local and remote forwarding : AllowTcpForwarding No I also tried the following, this will only allow -L to SX:1. It's better than nothing, but still not what I need, which is a "none" option. PermitOpen SX:1 So I'm wondering if there is a way, so that I can forbid all local port forwards to write something like : PermitOpen none:none Is the following a nice idea ? PermitOpen localhost:1

    Read the article

  • Setting up port forwarding for web server

    - by Javier Badia
    This could belong on Super User, but I thought this place was more appropiate. I want to run Apache in my computer and want to make it available to the outside world to test a couple things. Apparently, I have to go into my router's (a TP-LINK TD 8910G) settings and forward port 80 to my PC's IP. So far so good. Thing is, since the router uses a web based interface and it's kind of stupid, it told me that since I was using port 80 for this, I should access its settings through port 8080. Maybe it can't detect requests coming from the LAN, I don't know. Point is, now neither port can't access the configuration, and I can't access Internet. Specifically, trying to access anything (including 192.168.1.1, the router's settings) through port 80 turns up a blank page (maybe if I had the server running in my computer I'd get something, but I don't want to risk trying, I had to reset the router and restore the settings), and port 8080 gives a "Can't establish connection" error in Firefox (and similar ones in other browsers). Is there a way to configure the router to not redirect requests coming from inside the network? I'm a beginner with this stuff, so please try to explain in a simple way. If this is more appropiate in Super User, I'm sorry.

    Read the article

  • MySQL remote access not working - Port Close?

    - by dave.zap
    I am not able to get a remote connection established to MySQL. From my pc I am able to telnet to 3306 on the existing server, but when I try the same with the new server it hangs for few minutes then returns # mysql -utest3 -h [server ip] -p Enter password: ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect to MySQL server on '[server ip]' (110) Here is some output from the server. # nmap -sT -O localhost -p 3306 ... PORT STATE SERVICE 3306/tcp closed mysql ... # netstat -anp | grep mysql tcp 0 0 [server ip]:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 6349/mysqld unix 2 [ ACC ] STREAM LISTENING 12286 6349/mysqld /DATA/mysql/mysql.sock # netstat -anp | grep 3306 tcp 0 0 [server ip]:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 6349/mysqld unix 3 [ ] STREAM CONNECTED 3306 1411/audispd # lsof -i TCP:3306 COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME mysqld 6349 mysql 10u IPv4 12285 0t0 TCP [domain]:mysql (LISTEN) I am running... OS CentOS release 5.8 (Final) mysql 5.5.28 (Remi) Note: Internal connections to mysql work fine. I have disabled IPtables, the box has no other firewall, it runs Apache on port 80 and ssh no problem. Had followed this tutorial - http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/how-do-i-enable-remote-access-to-mysql-database-server.html I have bound the IP address in my.cnf user=mysql bind-address = [sever ip] port=3306 I even started over by deleting the mysql folder in my datastore and running mysql_install_db --datadir=/DATA/mysql --force Then recreated all the users as per the manual... http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/adding-users.html I have created one test user CREATE USER 'test'@'%' IDENTIFIED BY '[password]'; GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON *.* TO 'test'@'%' WITH GRANT OPTION; FLUSH PRIVILEGES; So all I can see is that the port is not really open. Where else might I look? thanks

    Read the article

  • Confusion about TCP packet analysis terms

    - by Berkay
    I'm analyzing our network and have some confusion about the terms: this is the 2-packet output from source to destination. from these i have to get some features as describe, pls make me clear... packets with at least a bytes of TCP data payload: it seems tcp.len0; The minimum segment size (confusion is headers are included or or not) The average segment size observed during the lifetime of the connection, the definition: is calculated as the value reported in the actual data bytes divided by the actual data pkts reported. Total bytes in IP packets, should be ip_len value. Total bytes in (Ethernet) The total number of bytes sent probably related to frame.len and frame.cap_len these two terms are describes as, also make me clear about these two terms. frame.cap_len: Frame length stored into the capture file frame.len: Frame length on the wire

    Read the article

  • iptables port forwarding troubleshooting

    - by cbmanica
    I'm trying to forward connections on port 18600 to port 9980. I have this in /etc/sysconfig/iptables: # Generated by iptables-save v1.3.5 on Mon Oct 21 18:30:43 2013 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2:280] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [12:768] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [12:768] -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 18600 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 9980 COMMIT # Completed on Mon Oct 21 18:30:43 2013 and /etc/init.d/iptables status shows me this: Table: nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) num target prot opt source destination 1 REDIRECT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:18600 redir ports 9980 However, I can telnet from localhost to port 9980, but not 18600. What am I missing? (This is a CentOS-based VM.)

    Read the article

  • Cisco IPSec, nat, and port forwarding don't play well together

    - by Alan
    I have two Cisco ADSL modems configured conventionally to nat the inside traffic to the ISP. That works. I have two port forwards on one of them for SMTP and IMAP from the outside to the inside this provides external access to the mail server. This works. The modem doing the port forwarding also terminates PPTP VPN traffic. There are two DNS servers one inside the office which resolves mail to the local address, one outside the office which resolves mail for the rest of the world to the external interface. That all works. I recently added an IPSec VPN between the two modems and that works for every thing EXCEPT connections over the IPSec VPN to the mail server on port 25 or 143 from workstations on the remote lan. It would seem that the modem with the port forwards is confusing traffic from the mail server destined for a machine on the other side of the IPSec VPN for traffic that should go back to a port forward connection. PPTP VPN traffic to the mail server is fine. Is this a scenario anybody is familiar with and are there any suggestions on how to work around it? Many thanks Alan But wait there is more..... This is the strategic parts of the nat config. A route map is used to exclude the lans that are reachable via IPSec tunnels from being Nated. int ethernet0 ip nat inside int dialer1 ip nat outside ip nat inside source route-map nonat interface Dialer1 overload route-map nonat permit 10 match ip address 105 access-list 105 remark *** Traffic to NAT access-list 105 deny ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.9.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 105 deny ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.48.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 105 permit ip 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.241 25 interface Dialer1 25 ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.241 143 interface Dialer1 143 At the risk of answering my own question, I resolved this outside the Cisco realm. I bound a secondary ip address to mail server 192.168.1.244, changed the port forwards to use it while leaving all the local and IPSec traffic to use 192.168.1.241 and the problem was solved. New port forwards. ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.244 25 interface Dialer1 25 ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.244 143 interface Dialer1 143 Obviously this is a messy solution and being able to fix this in the Cisco would be preferable.

    Read the article

  • How can private IPV4 addresses get past iptables NAT (tcp RST,FIN)

    - by gscott
    I've got a router performing simple NAT translation using iptables iptables -t nat -o -j MASQUERADE This works fine almost all of the time except for one particular case where some TCP RST and FIN packets are leaving the router un-NAT'd. In this scenario I setup 1 or 2 client computers streaming Flash video (eg www.nasa.gov/ntv) At the router I then tear down and re-establish the public interface (which is a modem) As expected the Flash streams stall out. After the connection is re-established and I try to refresh the Flash pages, I see some TCP RST and [FIN,ACK] packets leaving the public interface (I assume as Flash attempts to recover its stream). I don't know how these packets can leave the router non-NAT'd

    Read the article

  • terminal tools and logs for debugging TCP issues

    - by kellogs
    I have a server which I am testing for functionality (not load, not stress) with tsung. 50 users / second, 100 total users. Judging from tsung (tsung is the testing framework) graphs, there TCP connections (red line) drops to 0 while the commenced user sessions (green line) does not. Server logs show nothing to be gripping onto, so I am speculating some kind of TCP issue. Should this be the case ? Where would I look further on the server, any logs / tools to be looking at ? Only SSH available, no GUI. > root@XMPP:~# cat /etc/lsb-release > DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu > DISTRIB_RELEASE=11.10 > DISTRIB_CODENAME=oneiric > DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 11.10" Thank you

    Read the article

  • TCP connection stuck in SYN_RECV state despite ACK received, Linux 2.6.18, embedded, ARM

    - by waynix
    My client cannot connect to my protocol port (TCP) after some network glitches, even though all other protocols (telnet/HTTP/FTP) work fine. netstat shows that my server is listening and tcpdump on the server shows all 3 packets are exchanged: 18:29:16.578964 IP 10.9.59.10.3355 10.9.43.131.5084: S 2602965897:2602965897(0) win 65535 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> 18:29:16.579107 IP 10.9.43.131.5084 10.9.59.10.3355: S 3464857909:3464857909(0) ack 2602965898 win 5840 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK> 18:29:16.579284 IP 10.9.59.10.3355 10.9.43.131.5084: . ack 1 win 65535 But somehow netstat -t shows the connection still in SYN_RECV, as if the ack is not seen by the TCP state machine. I have to restart my server to get it to work. syncookie is not enabled, and I know from client code behavior and tcpdump that there is no SYN flooding. Help much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 constantly spamming external IP's on outbound TCP port 445

    - by RSXAdmin
    Hi Server Fault, I have a Windows Server 2008 box running as a Domain Controller. I have noticed in my Cisco ASA firewall logs that this box is continuously sending out (like a thousand requests a second) requests on TCP port 445 to external hosts. I have made an effort to deny this outbound traffic from getting on the internet (using the ASA), however I would like these requests to stop from even occurring at all. I have tried disabling TCP/IP over NetBIOS. I have even turned on Windows Advanced Firewall on the box itself to block outbound 445 but the ASA still detects this particular traffic hitting it. I have other DC's and similar type boxes which are not behaving the same way as this box. Is this normal? Is there a way to stop this spamming? Have I been infected? Thank you universe.

    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

  • TCP 30 small packets per second flood connection with server

    - by Denis Ermolin
    I'm testing connection with flash client and cloud server(boost::asio for software) over TCP connection. My connection with server already is really poor - 120 ms ping in average. I found when i start to send packets with 2 bytes size (without tcp header) with speed 30 packets/s - ping grow to 170-200 average. I think that it's really bad and my bad connection and bad cloud provider is reason for this high ping without any load. What do you think? (I tested my software - it can compute about 50k small packets/s so software is not a problem). I measure my ping through flash client - send packet with timestamp and immediatly send from server to client.

    Read the article

  • Tcp window size won't go above 130048

    - by Roger
    I have 2 servers set up with about 80ms latency between them. Both are centos 6 and run a java app that transfers data from on location to another. Both are on 1gbps connections. I have been trying different sysctl settings and different send & receive buffer settings in java but no matter what I set them to, I cannot get the tcp window size to go above 130048 in the tcp dumps. This equates to roughly 13mbps which is the actual throughput I am getting.

    Read the article

  • Poor TCP loopback throughput on Windows

    - by Yodan Tauber
    I measured the throughput of a locally bound TCP socket connection on my computer (Intel Q9550, 64 GB RAM, Windows XP 64 bit) using iperf. I got dissatisfying results (around 1.6 Gbit/s) each time, no matter how I tweaked the TCP settings (buffer length, window size, max segment size, no delay). I got similar results when I tried netperf. Now, I understand (from sources like these) that the average throughput of a loopback connection should be around 5 Gbit/s. What could be the reasons for such poor performance?

    Read the article

  • DTracing TCP congestion control

    - by user12820842
    In a previous post, I showed how we can use DTrace to probe TCP receive and send window events. TCP receive and send windows are in effect both about flow-controlling how much data can be received - the receive window reflects how much data the local TCP is prepared to receive, while the send window simply reflects the size of the receive window of the peer TCP. Both then represent flow control as imposed by the receiver. However, consider that without the sender imposing flow control, and a slow link to a peer, TCP will simply fill up it's window with sent segments. Dealing with multiple TCP implementations filling their peer TCP's receive windows in this manner, busy intermediate routers may drop some of these segments, leading to timeout and retransmission, which may again lead to drops. This is termed congestion, and TCP has multiple congestion control strategies. We can see that in this example, we need to have some way of adjusting how much data we send depending on how quickly we receive acknowledgement - if we get ACKs quickly, we can safely send more segments, but if acknowledgements come slowly, we should proceed with more caution. More generally, we need to implement flow control on the send side also. Slow Start and Congestion Avoidance From RFC2581, let's examine the relevant variables: "The congestion window (cwnd) is a sender-side limit on the amount of data the sender can transmit into the network before receiving an acknowledgment (ACK). Another state variable, the slow start threshold (ssthresh), is used to determine whether the slow start or congestion avoidance algorithm is used to control data transmission" Slow start is used to probe the network's ability to handle transmission bursts both when a connection is first created and when retransmission timers fire. The latter case is important, as the fact that we have effectively lost TCP data acts as a motivator for re-probing how much data the network can handle from the sending TCP. The congestion window (cwnd) is initialized to a relatively small value, generally a low multiple of the sending maximum segment size. When slow start kicks in, we will only send that number of bytes before waiting for acknowledgement. When acknowledgements are received, the congestion window is increased in size until cwnd reaches the slow start threshold ssthresh value. For most congestion control algorithms the window increases exponentially under slow start, assuming we receive acknowledgements. We send 1 segment, receive an ACK, increase the cwnd by 1 MSS to 2*MSS, send 2 segments, receive 2 ACKs, increase the cwnd by 2*MSS to 4*MSS, send 4 segments etc. When the congestion window exceeds the slow start threshold, congestion avoidance is used instead of slow start. During congestion avoidance, the congestion window is generally updated by one MSS for each round-trip-time as opposed to each ACK, and so cwnd growth is linear instead of exponential (we may receive multiple ACKs within a single RTT). This continues until congestion is detected. If a retransmit timer fires, congestion is assumed and the ssthresh value is reset. It is reset to a fraction of the number of bytes outstanding (unacknowledged) in the network. At the same time the congestion window is reset to a single max segment size. Thus, we initiate slow start until we start receiving acknowledgements again, at which point we can eventually flip over to congestion avoidance when cwnd ssthresh. Congestion control algorithms differ most in how they handle the other indication of congestion - duplicate ACKs. A duplicate ACK is a strong indication that data has been lost, since they often come from a receiver explicitly asking for a retransmission. In some cases, a duplicate ACK may be generated at the receiver as a result of packets arriving out-of-order, so it is sensible to wait for multiple duplicate ACKs before assuming packet loss rather than out-of-order delivery. This is termed fast retransmit (i.e. retransmit without waiting for the retransmission timer to expire). Note that on Oracle Solaris 11, the congestion control method used can be customized. See here for more details. In general, 3 or more duplicate ACKs indicate packet loss and should trigger fast retransmit . It's best not to revert to slow start in this case, as the fact that the receiver knew it was missing data suggests it has received data with a higher sequence number, so we know traffic is still flowing. Falling back to slow start would be excessive therefore, so fast recovery is used instead. Observing slow start and congestion avoidance The following script counts TCP segments sent when under slow start (cwnd ssthresh). #!/usr/sbin/dtrace -s #pragma D option quiet tcp:::connect-request / start[args[1]-cs_cid] == 0/ { start[args[1]-cs_cid] = 1; } tcp:::send / start[args[1]-cs_cid] == 1 && args[3]-tcps_cwnd tcps_cwnd_ssthresh / { @c["Slow start", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); } tcp:::send / start[args[1]-cs_cid] == 1 && args[3]-tcps_cwnd args[3]-tcps_cwnd_ssthresh / { @c["Congestion avoidance", args[2]-ip_daddr, args[4]-tcp_dport] = count(); } As we can see the script only works on connections initiated since it is started (using the start[] associative array with the connection ID as index to set whether it's a new connection (start[cid] = 1). From there we simply differentiate send events where cwnd ssthresh (congestion avoidance). Here's the output taken when I accessed a YouTube video (where rport is 80) and from an FTP session where I put a large file onto a remote system. # dtrace -s tcp_slow_start.d ^C ALGORITHM RADDR RPORT #SEG Slow start 10.153.125.222 20 6 Slow start 138.3.237.7 80 14 Slow start 10.153.125.222 21 18 Congestion avoidance 10.153.125.222 20 1164 We see that in the case of the YouTube video, slow start was exclusively used. Most of the segments we sent in that case were likely ACKs. Compare this case - where 14 segments were sent using slow start - to the FTP case, where only 6 segments were sent before we switched to congestion avoidance for 1164 segments. In the case of the FTP session, the FTP data on port 20 was predominantly sent with congestion avoidance in operation, while the FTP session relied exclusively on slow start. For the default congestion control algorithm - "newreno" - on Solaris 11, slow start will increase the cwnd by 1 MSS for every acknowledgement received, and by 1 MSS for each RTT in congestion avoidance mode. Different pluggable congestion control algorithms operate slightly differently. For example "highspeed" will update the slow start cwnd by the number of bytes ACKed rather than the MSS. And to finish, here's a neat oneliner to visually display the distribution of congestion window values for all TCP connections to a given remote port using a quantization. In this example, only port 80 is in use and we see the majority of cwnd values for that port are in the 4096-8191 range. # dtrace -n 'tcp:::send { @q[args[4]-tcp_dport] = quantize(args[3]-tcps_cwnd); }' dtrace: description 'tcp:::send ' matched 10 probes ^C 80 value ------------- Distribution ------------- count -1 | 0 0 |@@@@@@ 5 1 | 0 2 | 0 4 | 0 8 | 0 16 | 0 32 | 0 64 | 0 128 | 0 256 | 0 512 | 0 1024 | 0 2048 |@@@@@@@@@ 8 4096 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 23 8192 | 0

    Read the article

  • SSH & SFTP: Should I assign one port to each user to facilitate bandwidth monitoring?

    - by BertS
    There is no easy way to track real-time per-user bandwidth usage for SSH and SFTP. I think assigning one port to each user may help. Idea of implementation Use case Bob, with UID 1001, shall connect on port 31001. Alice, with UID 1002, shall connect on port 31002. John, with UID 1003, shall connect on port 31003. (I do not want to lauch several sshd instances as proposed in question 247291.) 1. Setup for SFTP: In /etc/ssh/sshd_config: Port 31001 Port 31002 Port 31003 Subsystem sftp /usr/bin/sftp-wrapper.sh The file sftp-wrapper.sh starts the sftp server only if the port is the correct one: #!/bin/sh mandatory_port=3`id -u` current_port=`echo $SSH_CONNECTION | awk '{print $4}'` if [ $mandatory_port -eq $current_port ] then exec /usr/lib/openssh/sftp-server fi 2. Additional setup for SSH: A few lines in /etc/profile prevents the user from connecting on the wrong port: if [ -n "$SSH_CONNECTION" ] then mandatory_port=3`id -u` current_port=`echo $SSH_CONNECTION | awk '{print $4}'` if [ $mandatory_port -ne $current_port ] then echo "Please connect on port $mandatory_port." exit 1 fi fi Benefits Now it should be easy to monitor per-user bandwidth usage. A Rrdtool-based application could produce charts like this: I know this won't be a perfect calculation of the bandwidth usage: for example, if somebody launches a bruteforce attack on port 31001, there will be a lot of traffic on this port although not from Bob. But this is not a problem to me: I do not need an exact computation of per-user bandwidth usage, but an indicator that is approximately correct in standard situations. Questions Is the idea of assigning one port for each user is a good one? Is the proposed setup an reliable one? If I have to open dozens of ports for many users, should I expect a performance drawback? Do you know a rrdtool-based application which could make the chart above?

    Read the article

  • Lingering tcp connection in LISTEN state

    - by Silvio Donnini
    My java application can sometimes be killed by an external script. This can be done either with SIGTERM or with SIGKILL. The application is a server which receives many connections per second, and it can be killed while trying to serve them. I would like to restart the application whenever it's killed, so I have prepared a script for that purpose. The problem is that, once the app has been killed, the new application instance can't bind to the port used by the previous instance, because the "Address is already in use". The previous instance's process has been definitely terminated, anyway the offending listening port is still there, but it is assigned to bash (or sh on other machines). Obviouly, my goal is to restart the application and let it bind successfully to the previous address. I've tried waiting more than 200 seconds before restarting to no avail, anyway I can't afford to wait that much. I've encountered this problem on all the machines I've ran the application (which is a jetty server with java 1.6). Any suggestion is appreciated, thanks, Silvio

    Read the article

  • TCP Proxy on windows supporting SOCK5

    - by acidzombie24
    I been using privoxy just fine for the moment. However now i need to redirect non http traffic through a proxy that supports SOCK5. I looked at RINETD and spent some time googling (which led me to a SF question suggesting RINETD) but i couldnt figure out how to make it work. Specifically how to give it a listening port for my .NET apps to connect to and the SOCK5 proxy addr/port to connect to (.NET does not support using SOCK5 which is why i need a proxy). What is a simple to use proxy on windows? It must support TCP traffic (instead of only http) and supports SOCK5. -edit- portable solution preferred. I should be able to run it on my usb stick under a limited user.

    Read the article

  • TCP connection between PCs in home wi-fi network

    - by Nordvind
    I want to establish a connection between 2 PCs. Point is to practice in writing client-server applications and similar stuff. I've heard around, that I can access another PC in network by address like "Router IP:port number". Am I right or i got it wrong? So how do I configure router to let connections to certain ports? And what would address look like, if I'm, say, connecting to 80 port on my home server? P.S. Will be grateful for links to some tutorials on this matter, if any.

    Read the article

  • TCP 3 way handshake

    - by Tom
    Hi, i'm just observing what NMAP is doing for the 3 ports it reports are open. I understand what a half-scan attack is, but what's happening doesnt make sense. NMAP is reporting ports 139 are 445 are open..... all fine. But when i look at the control bits, NMAP never sends RST once it has found out the port is open, It does this for port 135- but not 139 and 445. This is what happens: (I HAVE OMITTED THE victim's replies) Sends a 2 (SYN) Sends a 16 (ACK) Sends a 24 (ACK + PST) Sends a 16 (ACK) Sends a 17 (ACK + FIN) I dont get why NMAP doesnt 'RST' ports 139 and 445??

    Read the article

  • TCP handshake ok, then the client isn't receiving any packets from the server

    - by infgeoax
    Topology: Client ----- Intermediate Device ----- Server Client: win7 Intermediate Device: unknown Server: CentOS 5.8 The problem occurs when the client and server are trying to establish a SSL connection. It happens to one specific port, 2000. I haven't been able to replicate the problem with other port numbers. I captured packets on both client and server. After the TCP handshake, from the client's perspective, it's not receiving ACKs for its previously sent packets so it kept re-sending them. On the server side, however, it did receive those packets and sent ACK packets. The weird thing is, after the server sent those ACKs, it received a [RST, ACK] packet, from the intermediate device, for every packet it sent. What could be the cause?

    Read the article

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