Search Results

Search found 12089 results on 484 pages for 'rule of three'.

Page 86/484 | < Previous Page | 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93  | Next Page >

• Outbound mail issue during Exchange 2003 migration

  - by user27574

  Dear all, I am having an outbound email issue during the Exch 03 migration. Basically, we are migrating Exch03 to new hardware, both servers are Server 03 based. Everything runs smooth while setting up and installing Exch 03 on the new box. Public folders are all replicated. My issues are shown below.... 1) After starting to move users' mailboxes to new Exch 03, they receive some undeliverable mail and bounced back mail from some vendors, then I move few users back to test around, they have no problem at all after moving back to old Exch 03. 2) Another issue is our company has Blackberry users, we don't have BES. Under each user's mailboxes, we have forward rule setup, so that both user inbox and BB can receive email. User who is moved to the new Exch 03 server, they can only send email to the BB user's inbox, mail cannot be forwarded to BB at all, smtp queue stacks up and keep trying until the time is expired. Since not all emails that the users send out from the new Exch have problem, I am not able to narrow down what is the issue here. Can anyone give me some ideas? Could this be MX record / Reversed DNS relate? Or firewall NAT rule setting? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Windows Firewall Software to Filter Transit Traffic

  - by soonts

  I need to test my networking code for Nintendo Wii under the conditions when some specific Internet server is not available. Wii is connected to my PC with crossover ethernet cable. PC has 2 NICs. PC is connected to hardware router with ethernet cable. The hardware router serves as NAT and has an internet connected to its uplink. I set the Wii to be in the same lan as PC by using Windows XP Network bridge. I can observe the WII network traffic using e.g. Wireshark sniffer. Is there a software firewall that can selectively filter out transit traffic? (e.g. block outgoing TCP connections to 123.45.67.89 to port 443) I tried Outpost Pro 2009 and Comodo. Outpost firewall blocks all transit traffic with it's implicit "block transit packet" rule. If the transit traffic is explicitly allowed by creating the system-wide low level rule, then it's allowed completely and no other filter can selectively block it. Comodo firewall only process rules when the packet has localhost's IP as either source or destination, allowing the rest of the traffic. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! P.S. Platform is Windows XP 32 bit, no other OSes is allowed, Windows ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) doesnt work since the Wii is unable to connect, becides I don't like the idea of adding one more level of NAT.

  Read the article

• Creating Routes using the second NIC in the box

  - by Aditya Sehgal

  OS: Linux I need some advice on how to set up the routing table. I have a box with two physical NIC cards eth0 & eth1 with two associated IPs IP1 & IP2 (both of the same subnet). I need to setup a route which will force all messages from IP1 towards IP3 (of the same subnet) to go via IP2. I have a raw socket capture program listening on IP2 (This is not for malicious use). I have set up the routing table as Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface IP3 IP2 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1 If I try to specify eth0 while adding the above rule, I get an error "SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable". I understand from the manpage of route that if the GW specified is a local interface, then that would be use as the outgoing interface. After setting up this rule, if i do a traceroute (-i eth0), the packet goes first to the default gateway and then to IP3. How do I force the packet originating from eth0 towards IP3 to first come to IP2. I cannot make changes to the routing table of the gateway. Please suggest.

  Read the article

• Enabling NAT forwarding using a second WAN interface and a second gateway on ubuntu

  - by nixnotwin

  I have 3 interfaces: eth0 192.168.0.50/24 eth1 10.0.0.200/24 eth2 225.228.123.211 The default gateway is 192.168.0.1 which I want to keep as it is in the changes I want to make. I want to masquerade eth1 10.0.0.200/24 and enable NAT forwarding to eth2. So I have done this: ip route add 225.228.123.208/29 dev eth2 src 225.228.123.211 table t1 ip route add default via 225.228.123.209 dev eth2 table t1 ip rule add from 225.228.123.211 table t1 ip rule add to 225.228.123.211 table t1 Now I can receive ping replies from any internet host if I did: ping -I eth2 8.8.8.8 To enable NAT forwarding I did this: sudo iptables -A FORWARD -o eth2 -i eth1 -s 10.0.0.0/24 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE But it isn't working. To test I used a client pc and put it on 10.0.0.0/24 network and gateway was set as 10.0.0.200. I want to have 192.168.0.1 as default gateway. And the traffic that comes in via eth1 10.0.0.200/24 should be forwarded to eth2 225.228.123.211. I have enabled forwarding on ubuntua also.

  Read the article

• Using URL rewrite module for http to https redirect

  - by johnnyb10

  Following ruslany's suggestion on the URL Rewrite Tips page here, I'm trying to use URL Rewrite to redirect http:// requests for my site to https://. I've written and tested the rule using a test site I set up, and so now the final piece is to create a second site (http) to redirect to my https site. (I need to use a second site because I don't want to uncheck the "Require SSL encryption" checkbox on my existing site.) I'm an IIS newbie so my question is: how do I do this? Should I create a site with the same name and host header, only it will be bound to http? Will IIS let me create a site with the same name? I don't want to screw anything up with my existing site (which is a SharePoint site, currently used by external users). That site currently has http and https bound to it. So my assumption is that, using ISS (not SharePoint), I will create a new site (http only) with the same name and host header as my existing site, and add the URL Rewrite rule to the http site. And then I guess I should remove the http binding from my existing site? Does that seem correct? Any advice, gotchas, etc., would be appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• SNMP Access on Ubuntu

  - by javano

  I am trying to use SNMP to monitor a machine locally on its self and remotely. This is the snmpd.conf (Ubuntu 8.04.1): # sec.name source comunity com2sec readonly 1.2.3.4 nicenandtight com2sec readonly 5.6.7.8 reallysafe group MyROGroup v1 readonly group MyROGroup v2c readonly group MyROGroup usm readonly view all included .1 view system included .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.system access MyROGroup "" any noauth exact all none none syslocation my house syscontact me <[email protected]> exec .1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.7890.1 distro /usr/bin/distro smuxpeer .1.3.6.1.4.1.674.10892.1 includeAllDisks 95% 1.2.3.4 is the local machines IP and everything is working locally. 5.6.7.8 is the remote machine and initially I am just trying to touch SNMPD with snmpwalk from the remote machine; snmpwalk -v 2c -c reallysafe 1.2.3.4 Timeout: No Response from 1.2.3.4 I have added to iptables as the very first rule; -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT With such a loose iptables rule I can't see why I can't even touch the SNMPD on that Uubuntu Machine. There are more specific rules further down the table but as I couldn't connect I added the above. TCPDump shows the UDP packets coming in. What could be going wrong here?

  Read the article

• Ping and crawling not working, site still resolving

  - by Andrew Alexander

  Ok, so we're trying to figure out why the site of one of our clients isn't being crawled by Google (we've ruled out robots.txt or meta tags) When we go to the site, either IP address or domain name, the site resolves, everything works. However, Google is getting a 302 redirect (which it apparently isn't following for crawling), and when we ping the address, it times out (note, the site is still resolving in the browser throughout all of this). The site is built in ASP.Net (I assume C#) and so my thoughts were that it was an errant redirect rule, or some other sort of server side issue. We also thought that it might be due to incorrect domain pointing (but if we try to ping the IP, it doesn't work, so that sorta rules that out). We're really not sure what is causing all of these errors, or even if they have one single source. Anyone have any ideas what could be going on? Do you need any more information? To boil it down in a TL; dr: * Site resolving in browser, both IP and domain name. No problems here. * Site not being crawled by Google (gets a 302 it doesn't seem to follow) - it is not due to robots.txt or meta tags * Ping is not working for the IP address. This is very odd, because again, the IP address seems to work fine in the browser. * Our thoughts are either redirect rule issue, domain pointing issue, or possibly some errant code - or some combination of the three

  Read the article

• iptables to block non-VPN-traffic if not through tun0

  - by dacrow

  I have a dedicated Webserver running Debian 6 and some Apache, Tomcat, Asterisk and Mail-stuff. Now we needed to add VPN support for a special program. We installed OpenVPN and registered with a VPN provider. The connection works well and we have a virtual tun0 interface for tunneling. To archive the goal for only tunneling a single program through VPN, we start the program with sudo -u username -g groupname command and added a iptables rule to mark all traffic coming from groupname iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -j MARK --set-mark 42 Afterwards we tell iptables to to some SNAT and tell ip route to use special routing table for marked traffic packets. Problem: if the VPN failes, there is a chance that the special to-be-tunneled program communicates over the normal eth0 interface. Desired solution: All marked traffic should not be allowed to go directly through eth0, it has to go through tun0 first. I tried the following commands which didn't work: iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname ! -o tun0 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -o eth0 -j REJECT It might be the problem, that the above iptable-rules didn't work due to the fact, that the packets are first marked, then put into tun0 and then transmitted by eth0 while they are still marked.. I don't know how to de-mark them after in tun0 or to tell iptables, that all marked packet may pass eth0, if they where in tun0 before or if they going to the gateway of my VPN provider. Does someone has any idea to a solution? Some config infos: iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t mangle Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 9798M bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 591K 50M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 MARK set 0x2a 2 82812 6938K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 CONNMARK save iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 393 packets, 23908 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 15 1052 SNAT all -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x2a to:VPN_IP ip rule add from all fwmark 42 lookup 42 ip route show table 42 default via VPN_IP dev tun0

  Read the article

• Office 2003 Service Pack 3- Not able to install

  - by kabirrao

  I am trying to install Office 2003 SP3 on a windows 2003 EE server (used as a terminal server) which already have office 2003 SP2. I am getting an error that says "Update can not be applied". Below are the eventviewer entries for Application: _ Event Type: Warning Event Source: MsiInstaller Event Category: None Event ID: 1015 Date: 1-2-2010 Time: 5:51:22 User: Domain\domainadmin Computer: TER01 Description: Failed to connect to server. Error: 0x800401F0 For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp. _ Event Type: Information Event Source: MsiInstaller Event Category: None Event ID: 11708 Date: 1-2-2010 Time: 5:52:23 User: Domain\domainadmin Computer: TER01 Description: Product: Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003 -- Installation failed. For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp. Data: 0000: 7b 39 30 31 31 30 34 30 {9011040 0008: 39 2d 36 30 30 30 2d 31 9-6000-1 0010: 31 44 33 2d 38 43 46 45 1D3-8CFE 0018: 2d 30 31 35 30 30 34 38 -0150048 0020: 33 38 33 43 39 7d 383C9} _ Event Type: Information Event Source: McLogEvent Event Category: None Event ID: 257 Date: 1-2-2010 Time: 5:52:23 User: NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Computer: TER01 Description: Would be blocked by access protection rule (rule is in warn-only mode) (Common Standard Protection:Prevent common programs from running files from the Temp folder).

  Read the article

• Using URL rewrite module for http to https redirect

  - by johnnyb10

  Following ruslany's suggestion on the URL Rewrite Tips page here, I'm trying to use URL Rewrite to redirect http:// requests for my site to https://. I've written and tested the rule using a test site I set up, and so now the final piece is to create a second site (http) to redirect to my https site. (I need to use a second site because I don't want to uncheck the "Require SSL encryption" checkbox on my existing site.) I'm an IIS newbie so my question is: how do I do this? Should I create a site with the same name and host header, only it will be bound to http? Will IIS let me create a site with the same name? I don't want to screw anything up with my existing site (which is a SharePoint site, currently used by external users). That site currently has http and https bound to it. So my assumption is that, using ISS (not SharePoint), I will create a new site (http only) with the same name and host header as my existing site, and add the URL Rewrite rule to the http site. And then I guess I should remove the http binding from my existing site? Does that seem correct? Any advice, gotchas, etc., would be appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• KeePass lost password and/or corruption due to Dropbox/KeePassX

  - by GummiV

  I started using Keepass about a month ago to hold my passwords and online accounts info. Everything was stored in a single .kdb file, only protected with a password. I'm using Windows 7. Now Keepass can't open my .kdb file with the error "Invalid/wrong key". I'm fairly confident I have the right password. Altough I might have mixed up a few letters I've tried about two dozen different combinations to minimize that possibility - but can't rule it out though. My guess is however that the .kdb file got corrupted, either due to Dropbox syncing (only using it on one computer though) or because I edited the file using KeePassX on Ubuntu (dual boot on the same computer, accessing a mounted Win7 NTFS partition), or possibly a combination of both. I have tried restoring older versions(even the original one) from Dropbox and trying out all possible passwords without any luck. (which does seem to rule out KeePassX as the culprit, since oldest copies are before I edited the file from Ubuntu) I have tried opening the file with the "Repair KeePass Database file" which always gives the "0xA Invalid/corrupt file structure" (the same error for when a wrong password is typed). I was wondering if there was any way for me to salvage my hard-gathered data. I know generally that brute force cracking is not feasible, but since I can remember probably more than half of the usernames/passwords, any maybe the fact that one of them does come up fairly often (my go-to pass for trivial stuff), that might simplify the brute force process to a doable time frame. Maybe the brute-force thing might incorporate the fact that I know the password length and what characters it's made from. (If we assume corruption, not a password-blackout on my part) I could do some programming if there are any libraries or routines that I could use. Other people seem to have had a similar probem http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=6199 http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=9139 http://www.keepassx.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1967&f=1 So hopefully this question will become a suitible resource for people when searching the web. Feel free to tell me if you think this should rather be a community wiki.

  Read the article

• Port 5357 TCP on Windows 7 professional 64 bit?

  - by Registered

  Is there a reason this port is open, a quick Nmap scan and Nessus scan reveal it's open, why? Are there any ramifications if I close this port via the firewall rule set? Or does anyone here now more info about this port besides Google? WTF? 1)http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/who-left-tunnel-door-open-windows-firewall-vista-0 I know the talk is about Vista, but I am pretty sure it's the same port on 7, also. 2)Port 5357 common errors:The port is vulnerable to info leak problems allowing it to be accessed remotely by malicious authors. (Web Services for Devices) I am blocking this crap, if I have issues will just re-enable. Damn windows. Inbound rule for Network Discovery to allow WSDAPI Events via Function Discovery. [TCP 5357] You just got blocked, until I break something, will see. Time to re-Nmap and re-Nessus. Nmap scan 0 open ports after closing Port 5357,Win7 still works for now, one more scan with Nessus just to make sure all is well.

  Read the article

• plesk: how to configure reverse proxy rules properly?

  - by rvdb

  I'm trying to configure reverse proxy rules in vhost.conf. I have Apache-2.2.8 on Ubuntu-8.04, monitored by Plesk-10.4.4. What I'm trying to achieve is defining a reverse proxy rule that defers all traffic to -say- http://mydomain/tomcat/ to the Tomcat server running on port 8080. I have mod_rewrite and mod_proxy loaded in Apache. As far as I understand mod_proxy docs, entering following rules in /var/www/vhosts/mydomain/conf/vhost.conf should work: <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyRequests off RewriteRule ^/tomcat/(.*)$ http://mydomain:8080/$1 [P] Yet, I am getting a HTTP 500: internal server error when requesting above URL. (Note: I decided to use a rewrite rule in order to at least get some information logged.) I have made mod_rewrite log extensively, and find following entries in the logs [note: due to a limitation of max. 2 URLs in posts of new users, I have modified all following URLs so that they only contain 1 slash after http:. In case you're suspecting typos: this was done on purpose): 81.241.230.23 - - [19/Mar/2012:16:42:59 +0100] [mydomain/sid#b06ab8][rid#1024af8/initial] (2) init rewrite engine with requested uri /tomcat/testApp/ 81.241.230.23 - - [19/Mar/2012:16:42:59 +0100] [mydomain/sid#b06ab8][rid#1024af8/initial] (3) applying pattern '^/tomcat/(.*)$' to uri '/tomcat/testApp/' 81.241.230.23 - - [19/Mar/2012:16:42:59 +0100] [mydomain/sid#b06ab8][rid#1024af8/initial] (2) rewrite '/tomcat/testApp/' - 'http:/mydomain:8080/testApp/' 81.241.230.23 - - [19/Mar/2012:16:42:59 +0100] [mydomain/sid#b06ab8][rid#1024af8/initial] (2) forcing proxy-throughput with http:/mydomain:8080/testApp/ 81.241.230.23 - - [19/Mar/2012:16:42:59 +0100] [mydomain/sid#b06ab8][rid#1024af8/initial] (1) go-ahead with proxy request proxy:http:/mydomain:8080/testApp/ [OK] This suggests that the rewrite and proxy part is processed ok; still the proxied request produces a 500 error. Yet: Addressing the testApp directly via http:/mydomain:8080/testApp does work. The same setup does work on my local computer. Is there something else (Plesk-related, perhaps?) I should configure? Many thanks for any pointers! Ron

  Read the article

• iptables to block VPN-traffic if not through tun0

  - by dacrow

  I have a dedicated Webserver running Debian 6 and some Apache, Tomcat, Asterisk and Mail-stuff. Now we needed to add VPN support for a special program. We installed OpenVPN and registered with a VPN provider. The connection works well and we have a virtual tun0 interface for tunneling. To archive the goal for only tunneling a single program through VPN, we start the program with sudo -u username -g groupname command and added a iptables rule to mark all traffic coming from groupname iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -j MARK --set-mark 42 Afterwards we tell iptables to to some SNAT and tell ip route to use special routing table for marked traffic packets. Problem: if the VPN failes, there is a chance that the special to-be-tunneled program communicates over the normal eth0 interface. Desired solution: All marked traffic should not be allowed to go directly through eth0, it has to go through tun0 first. I tried the following commands which didn't work: iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname ! -o tun0 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -o eth0 -j REJECT It might be the problem, that the above iptable-rules didn't work due to the fact, that the packets are first marked, then put into tun0 and then transmitted by eth0 while they are still marked.. I don't know how to de-mark them after in tun0 or to tell iptables, that all marked packet may pass eth0, if they where in tun0 before or if they going to the gateway of my VPN provider. Does someone has any idea to a solution? Some config infos: iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t mangle Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 9798M bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 591K 50M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 MARK set 0x2a 2 82812 6938K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 CONNMARK save iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 393 packets, 23908 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 15 1052 SNAT all -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x2a to:VPN_IP ip rule add from all fwmark 42 lookup 42 ip route show table 42 default via VPN_IP dev tun0

  Read the article

• Apache can't get viewed from outside of my LAN

  - by Javier Martinez

  I fixed it in PORTS TRIGGER menu of my router. Thanks you anyway I have a weird problem related with (i think) my cable-router and my configured vhosts in Apache2. The point is I can't access from outside of my LAN to any of my configured vhosts if I set the http port of Apache to 80 and i add a NAT rule for it. Otherwise, if I set my Apache port to 81 (or any else) with its respective NAT rule on my router it works. My router is an ARRIS TG952S and I am using Apache/2.2.22 (Debian) ports.conf NameVirtualHost *:80 Listen 80 vhost1.mydomain.net.conf <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin webmaster@localhost ServerName vhost1.mydomain.net ServerAlias vhost1.mydomain.net www.vhost1.mydomain.net vhost2.mydomain.net.conf <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin webmaster@localhost ServerName vhost2.mydomain.net ServerAlias vhost2.mydomain.net www.vhost2.mydomain.net DNS records (using FreeDNS) are: mydomain.net --> pointing to another server vhost1.mydomain.net --> pointing to my server vhost2.mydomain.net --> pointing to my server iptables -L -n Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination fail2ban-apache-noscript tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 multiport dports 80,443 fail2ban-apache tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 multiport dports 80,443 fail2ban-ssh tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 multiport dports 22 Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain fail2ban-apache (1 references) target prot opt source destination RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain fail2ban-apache-noscript (1 references) target prot opt source destination RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain fail2ban-ssh (1 references) target prot opt source destination RETURN all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Thanks you

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 ignores any change made to firewall

  - by Maurice Courtois

  I have been trying for the last 2 hours to make my Windows Server 2008 answer ping. I have tried almost every single solution I have found on the web, so far nothing work. My current setup: 2 NIC (1x Internet connection, 1x Local network) Server act as VPN server. So I set the corresponding NIC as either Public or Private. I also enable the rule for "File and Printer Sharing (Echo Request...)" for all Nic and from any IPs. I always been able to ping from the local network or the local ip while connected to the VPN. I also tried to create a specific rule for ICMP ping and disabling the firewall for all but the public nic. Regardless of all this, I still can't ping that server from Internet. Any idea suggestion what could cause this? I have the impression that when you set the server as VPN (I switch the box on when setting it up to block everything else than VPN connection) that changing anything to the firewall setting thought mmc is pointless !?!?

  Read the article

• Can I use iptables on my Varnish server to forward HTTPS traffic to a specific server?

  - by Dylan Beattie

  We use Varnish as our front-end web cache and load balancer, so we have a Linux server in our development environment, running Varnish with some basic caching and load-balancing rules across a pair of Windows 2008 IIS web servers. We have a wildcard DNS rule that points *.development at this Varnish box, so we can browse http://www.mysite.com.development, http://www.othersite.com.development, etc. The problem is that since Varnish can't handle HTTPS traffic, we can't access https://www.mysite.com.development/ For dev/testing, we don't need any acceleration or load-balancing - all I need is to tell this box to act as a dumb proxy and forward any incoming requests on port 443 to a specific IIS server. I suspect iptables may offer a solution but it's been a long while since I wrote an iptables rule. Some initial hacking has got me as far as iptables -F iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --sport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j DNAT --to 10.0.0.241:443 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -d 10.0.0.241 --dport 443 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-level 4 --log-prefix 'PreRouting ' iptables -A OUTPUT -j LOG --log-level 4 --log-prefix 'PostRouting ' iptables-save > /etc/iptables.rules (where 10.0.0.241 is the IIS box hosting the HTTPS website), but this doesn't appear to be working. To clarify - I realize there's security implications about HTTPS proxying/caching - all I'm looking for is completely transparent IP traffic forwarding. I don't need to decrypt, cache or inspect any of the packets; I just want anything on port 443 to flow through the Linux box to the IIS box behind it as though the Linux box wasn't even there. Any help gratefully received... EDIT: Included full iptables config script.

  Read the article

• Removing Paths/ Landing Pages From SharePoint Search Results

  - by j.strugnell

  Hi there, We've been asked by a client to remove a number of pages from being shown up in their public website search results page. I've been into the SSP and created Crawl Rules to remove these pages. All seemed to have worked ok but we have an issue in that landing pages are still showing up in their "www.domain.com/sitearea/" form but not in their "www.domain.com/sitearea/pages/default.aspx". For each of this type of page we have created one rule to "Exclude" the "aspx" path and another rule to include the "/" path but to "Follow links on the URL without crawling the URL itself". We tried adding rules to exclude the "/" format but that only resulted in all results underneath that being excluded. Does anybody know how to remove the "area/pages/default.aspx" and the "area/" pats from Search Results? I'm not sure if it's the "done thing" to ask 2 questions in one but this is in a similar vein so it should be ok. I was wondering if anyone knew of a tool (or if it is possible) to allow site admins to exclude pages from search results (not via SSP/Crawl Rules). I know they can do it at the site level but I was wondering if anything out there enabled this to be done at the page level through either Page or Site Settings?

  Read the article

• How to migrate Outlook Express mail rules?

  - by ronwest

  I have a home computer that only had a 15Gb C: drive, and ran out of space with all the Microsoft Updates, etc, that keep coming down. So I fitted a 160Gb drive as a C: drive and altered the drive jumpers to make the old C: drive into a slave D: drive, to save migrating documents, etc. I've installed a clean copy of Windows XP SP3 and reassigned the new Outlook Express' mailstore path to point to the old mailstore folder that now has a D: drive letter - and it all works OK. However, my extensive list of mail rules have not been transferred to the new OE and I have not been able to identify how they are stored. To find it I added a new rule to the new OE, exited OE, then searched on the whole computer (including hidden/system files) for files altered around the time I added the rule. I hoped I could just overwrite a new empty file with an old one. But the only files that seem to be changed are Windows system-level files and some bits and pieces in the Windows\PreFetch sub-folder. None of them can be opened as XP has them locked, and none of them have names that are anything to do with email or rules. Does anyone know of any way of migrating OE rules, or do I have to re-enter them by hand? Thanks!

  Read the article

• IIS 7.0 rewrite url problem

  - by Jouni Pekkola

  Hello, How i can set redirect url for virtual directory in iis 7.0.I have installed lates url rewrite module 2. ? I could explain my problem with exsample. I have website on my iis 7.0 server: www.mysite.com I desided to create virtual directory sales under my site which is pointing to website root directory.Now I need create redirect url for the vdir. The vdir is pointing same virtual root directory as my site root is The big idea is that i can write on browser www.mysite/sales and i will automaticly redirect to url www.mysite.com?productid=200. I tried to make redirect with rewite url for vdir(not website), but I always get this error message : cannot add duplicate colletion entry of type 'rule' with unique key key attribute 'name' set to "test".This happens when i am pointing for virtual vdir and try to add rule. I can add rules to website level,but rules doesn work. I mean url www.mysite/sales gives me follwing error. I know that key is unique I checked it from web.config. This kind of feature was really easy use in IIS 6.0, just point vdir with your mouse and set properties--a redirect to url. Please some one explain what is right way to do it in IIS 7.0

  Read the article

• iis not listening on port 80

  - by Holian

  Hello, We have server 2003 and ISA 2004 with IIS 6 on same machnie. Everything worked well till yesterday, when we try to make some new rule in ISA..but this is a long story... Unfortunatelly something happend with our intranet site. Our site is on the port 80, but if we try to open on this client machines then we got and error page (which error page is our provider): 403-forbidden; Remote host not listening, the remote host is not prepared to acceppt the connection request. On the server i can open the site with port 80. If i change the port number in the iis and try to open the site with the port, then works well. I try to shut down IIS and start apache with a simple page. On the server works well but in clients the problem is the same, so i think this is not an IIS related problem. In the ISA we have a web pub rule, with port 80, no auth. Im pulling out my hair, please help.

  Read the article

• (updated) Subfolder needs whitelist and standard redirect for all others

  - by Superstrong

  How can I allow access to the foo.html files in the .com/song/private/ subfolder for: a logged-in Wordpress user; or any referral domains (including subfolders) I add; or any URL on our own domain from the com/song/private folder; For all others, the user should be redirected to the corresponding public version of the Post, which is the same html filename and structured .com/song/foo.html. (The private versions uses a different template with different custom fields for each Post.) Update: Here's what I have so far: <Limit GET POST> order deny,allow deny from all allow from domain.com/song/private allow from otherdomain.com </Limit> RewriteRule ^(.*)$ ../$ [NC,L] More: Will that last rewrite rule take people back to the public version, from com/song/private/foo.html to com/song/foo.html? I found the following rule for detecting Wordpress logged-in status, but what do I put aferward with a RewriteRule, and will it work anyway? (If not, is there an alternative?) RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !^.*wordpress_logged_in_.*$ N.B. I have added code to my root .htaccess allowing me to insert additional .htaccess files in other subfolders as needed. Copied from Stack Overflow, where they suggested I ask here.

  Read the article

• How to route broadcast packets from machine with two network interfaces on same subnet

  - by Syam

  I run RHEL 5 and have two NICs on one machine connected to the same subnet: eth0 192.168.100.10 eth1 192.168.100.11 My application needs to receive and transmit UDP packets (both unicast & broadcast) via these interfaces. I've found the way to handle the ARP problem and I've added routes to handle the routing problem: ip rule add from 192.168.100.10 lookup 10 ip route add table 10 default src 192.168.100.10 dev eth0 (and similarly, table 11 for eth1) The problem is that only unicast packets gets routed properly. Broadcast packets always go out through eth0. I tried removing the rule for 192.168.100.0 & 192.168.100.255 from table 255 and adding them to my tables. But then I see ARP requests being given out for packets to 192.168.100.255 (obviously, no nodes respond and nobody gets any data). Due to several techno-political issues, I'm stuck with this configuration and can't change subnets or try something different. I've tried SO_BINDTODEVICE and it works, but I'd prefer a solution that doesn't need my application to run as root. Is there a way to get this working? Any help is highly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Failed none and iptables

  - by Michael

  The problem is that when I ssh to my host with putty and enter user name, after that the password prompt delays. Found this is directly related to my iptables and can solve by changing default policy to ACCEPT. If default INPUT policy is ACCEPT, then password prompt is coming immediately. Mar 13 00:05:01 server-ubuntu sshd[6154]: Connection from 192.168.0.10 port 26304 Mar 13 00:05:06 server-ubuntu sshd[6154]: Failed none for acid from 192.168.0.10 port 26304 ssh2 However, if default INPUT policy is DROP, I got slight delay in getting password prompt after I enter username Mar 13 00:07:12 server-ubuntu sshd[6177]: Connection from 192.168.0.10 port 26333 Mar 13 00:07:35 server-ubuntu sshd[6177]: Failed none for acid from 192.168.0.10 port 26333 ssh2 For the second case, I tried to set default policy for FORWARD and OUTPUT chains to ACCEPT, but it didn't help. The only rule in this case is: -A INPUT -i eth1 -m mac --mac-source 00:26:XX:XX:XX:XX -j ACCEPT 00:26:XX:XX:XX:XX is the mac address from which I am trying to ssh to server's LAN(eth1). I'm sure there has to be some rule, which I can use while default INPUT chain policy is DENY in order to get password prompt immediately. I realize that the error message in the log is something normal and part of some verification procedure.

  Read the article

• OpenBSD pf - implementing the equivalent of an iptables DNAT

  - by chutz

  The IP address of an internal service is going to change. We have an OpenBSD access point (ssh + autpf rules) where clients connect and open a connection to the internal IP. To give us more time to reconfigure all clients to use the new IP address, I thought we can implement the equivalent of a DNAT on the authpf box. Basically, I want to write a rule similar to this iptables rule which lets me ping both $OLD_IP and $NEW_IP. iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d $OLD_IP -j DNAT --to-dest $NEW_IP Our version of OpenBSD is 4.7, but we can upgrade if necessary. If this DNAT is not possible we can probably do a NAT on a firewall along the way. The closest I was able to accomplish on a test box is: pass out on em1 inet proto icmp from any to 10.68.31.99 nat-to 10.68.31.247 Unfortunately, pfctl -s state tells me that nat-to translates the source IP, while I need to translate the destination. $ sudo pfctl -s state all icmp 10.68.31.247:7263 (10.68.30.199:13437) -> 10.68.31.99:8 0:0 I also found lots of mentions about rules that start with rdr and include the -> symbol to express the translation, but it looks like this syntax has been obsoleted in 4.7 and I cannot get anything similar to work. Attempts to implement a rdr fail with a complaint that /etc/pf.conf:20: rdr-to can only be used inbound

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93  | Next Page >