SEARCH  

NEWS

2010.10.06:11:36:28
Autentika i Divante łączą siły
Agencja interaktywna Autentika oraz firma Divante, specjalizująca się w dziedzinie e-commerce, postanowiły połączyć swoje siły i nawiązać współpracę, której celem jest poszerzenie oferty obu firm o dodatkowe kompetencje i możliwość obsługi złożonych projektów.

 

153222274240_560660007250Jay Levitt
On Sunday 11 April 2004 4:56 pm, __ Radien__ wrote: No. TCPwrappers is a response mechanism to see where a connection came from, not a gateway in the middle of a connection between two mach

 
168825704076_546060007080Alistair Tonner
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 01:38, Jay Levitt wrote: Im occasionally seeing lines like the following, always to the same machine which is on my internal network: Apr 11 01:11:52 linux kernel: Rej

 
132323104873_537160007772Alistair Tonner
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 01:38, Jay Levitt wrote: Im occasionally seeing lines like the following, always to the same machine which is on my internal network: Apr 11 01:11:52 linux kernel: Rej

 
183121744871_586960007478Antony Stone
hi im not sure if this is the right list to ask this, dont be too harsh one me :~ this is my ipv6 routing table # route -A inet6 -n Kernel IPv6 routing table Destination

 
134229404682_527860007142Antony Stone
hi im not sure if this is the right list to ask this, dont be too harsh one me :~ this is my ipv6 routing table # route -A inet6 -n Kernel IPv6 routing table Destination

 
177126354369_501160007904Antony Stone
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 02:54, Antony Stone wrote: Can anyone think how I can see the content of packets from a browser running on my machine, which is posting a form back to a remote server some

 
126129294473_533860007774Antony Stone
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 02:54, Antony Stone wrote: Can anyone think how I can see the content of packets from a browser running on my machine, which is posting a form back to a remote server some

 
141827114084_529160007682Antony Stone
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 01:54:39AM +0100, Antony Stone wrote: I want to pick up a packet stream, but for an HTTPS connection, and using a standard packet sniffer like ethereal just gives me t

 
106229134856_593360007710Antony Stone
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 01:54:39AM +0100, Antony Stone wrote: I want to pick up a packet stream, but for an HTTPS connection, and using a standard packet sniffer like ethereal just gives me t

 
141121234650_509360007753Anupam
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 20:54, Antony Stone wrote: Hi people. This is not strictly a netfilter question, but Im wondering if maybe someone can help or make a suggestion? I want to pick u

 
123521724387_560460007627Anupam
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 20:54, Antony Stone wrote: Hi people. This is not strictly a netfilter question, but Im wondering if maybe someone can help or make a suggestion? I want to pick u

 
150824454556_598160007944Philipp Stader

 
175422024655_583860007737Syed Faisal Gillani
Philipp Stader wrote:

 
151925564650_537560007431Nick Pasich
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Syed Faisal Gillani wrote: i am a newbie learning iptables ... can u tell me the rule of blocking only ping on my nic ? Hi, try this: iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-typ

 
108429004555_573460007957Frederic de Villamil
is it possible in iptables to FW a port traffic (eg 80) to an internal = ipaddress of a webserver ? Syed Faisal Gillani ClickOnline Networks clickonlinenetworks.com clickonlinenetworks.com E

 
148722274128_587460007311Jee JZ
is it possible in iptables to FW a port traffic (eg 80) to an internal = ipaddress of a webserver ? Syed Faisal Gillani ClickOnline Networks clickonlinenetworks.com clickonlinenetworks.com

 
150123394757_505660007540Jee JZ
On Saturday 10 April 2004 7:54 pm, Jee J.Z. wrote: Dear all, I am trying to setup three PCs and do some simple filter+nat jobs. The situation is specified below: 1.PC1 has one NIC with a

 
100020744743_565560007235Jee JZ
On Sunday 11 April 2004 12:33 am, Jee J.Z. wrote: Hi Antony, Thanks for getting the spelling right - lots of people round here dont :) Look at the routing table of each machine the packets a

 
139224314791_504260007279Jee JZ
On Sunday 11 April 2004 3:00 am, Jee J.Z. wrote: Heres what I think is going on: PC1 has a simple routing table saying "network 144.32.xxx.0/23 is on eth0, and the deafult gatew

 
147428914179_502860007171Antony Stone

 
198521114399_511360007231Chris Brenton
It happens on many servers, not just sourceforge - in fact, I get it on the netfilter server as well. And its only sometimes for any given server, not all the time... Ill try turning on sendmail lo

 
142524854571_518160007891Ranjeet Shetye
Chris Brenton wrote: On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 14:33, Jay Levitt wrote: sourceforge: [SYN] me: [SYN, ACK] sourceforge: [ACK] [SMTP conversation ensues, switches to TLS, sends me an

 
172225424965_546460007877Antony Stone
Hi all, some of you can give me some input about the best way to set up a vpn under two Linux RH9 systems? I heared there are different solution (PPP and SSH, PPTP...) and Id like to know your opin

 
169925894308_549060007113Antony Stone
Antony Stone wrote:

 
177021054004_594960007629Antony Stone
Hi, I forget one things, waht about the CIPE solution. I read that in the rh9 sec guide about VPN. And then, I see this news: the FreeS/WAN project is no longer in active development, it could b

 
112021184740_552060007725Alexander Samad
Ok, I see. Well, thank you very much for giving me such information and for being so exhaustive. regards Gianni Antony Stone wrote:

 
175226564210_532260007752Scott MacKay
---snip---- Development has moved to openswan I believe openvpm is another good choice for ipsec vpn solution Regards, Antony. -- The difference between theo

 
121325594294_517760007491Dick StPeters
Im afraid I dont have time to answer in depth today but here are a few quick answers regarding *swan: On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 08:25, Scott MacKay wrote: I had a couple questions about the different

 
105427224080_536260007712John A Sullivan III
On Saturday 10 April 2004 11:18, Antony Stone wrote: PPP is Point-to-Point Protocol, and has almost nothing to do with VPNs :) SSH is Secure Shell, and at least it contains some encryption, but

 
147629834817_548060007951Dimitris Kounalakis
lør, 10.04.2004 kl. 14.30 skrev John A. Sullivan III: [...] The closest solution we could find to rival the commercial offerings on such a large scale is netfilter + freeS/WAN + iproute2 +

 
110920514068_585060007300azeem ahmad
On Friday 09 April 2004 12:56 pm, Dimitris Kounalakis wrote: Hello, I need a special case and I am not sure it can exist with NAT (SNAT or DNAT) I have two lan networks with IP range : 1

 
157423234957_578460007794Jeffrey Laramie
On Friday 09 April 2004 11:07 pm, azeem ahmad wrote: hi alll i want to check the logs of iptables to check who is passing throught my machine. so plz tell me where r its logs and how can i che

 
153628594353_583160007376Antony Stone
Dear friends, As I am getting more confused about VPN masq., request your help on this. My local LAN is 10.35.0.0/24 My Linux box running red hat linux 9.0 with kernel 2.4.20-8. acting as the gat

 
132120904098_540260007310Luke Deryckx
yes, you need the pptp patch ive been in the same situation, and applying the patch made it work just fine.- see www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO//netfilter-extensions-HOWTO-5.html#ss5.6

 
111329294292_593160007223Manikandan
When I try to apply the patch, using netfilter CVS I am getting an error like Do you want to apply this patch [N/y/t/f/a/r/b/w/q/?] y Testing patch submitted/03_2.4.21.patch... Failed to patch copy

 
188125194275_595060007848azeem ahmad
On Friday 09 April 2004 12:56 pm, Dimitris Kounalakis wrote: Hello, I need a special case and I am not sure it can exist with NAT (SNAT or DNAT) I have two lan networks with IP range : 1

 
125029424170_520660007816Dave Barnum
On Sunday 25 April 2004 2:11 pm, Manikandan wrote: Somehow I managed to patch my kernel with pptp patch. But everytime when I load modules like ip_conntrack_pptp, ip_nat_pptp, I am getting an er

 
100022624674_535360007710Jeffrey Laramie
On Friday 09 April 2004 11:07 pm, azeem ahmad wrote: hi alll i want to check the logs of iptables to check who is passing throught my machine. so plz tell me where r its logs and how can i che

 
172924144801_582760007253Manikandan
Hi, Is there a patch for the IPSec masquerading for kernel 2.4.x. Basically, I need to allow multiple clients in a private lan access the (IPSec) VPN server through the internet. I hit upon this link

 
113729304182_542960007591Antony Stone
Dear friends, As I am getting more confused about VPN masq., request your help on this. My local LAN is 10.35.0.0/24 My Linux box running red hat linux 9.0 with kernel 2.4.20-8. acting as the gat

 
165327414110_592960007478Luke Deryckx
On Saturday 10 April 2004 6:18 am, Manikandan wrote: When I try to apply the patch, using netfilter CVS I am getting an error like Do you want to apply this patch [N/y/t/f/a/r/b/w/q/?] y T

 
177629404419_594760007145Luke Deryckx
yes, you need the pptp patch ive been in the same situation, and applying the patch made it work just fine.- see www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO//netfilter-extensions-HOWTO-5.html#ss5.6

 
176321464407_543660007500Antony Stone

 
114622284914_594760007729Manikandan
When I try to apply the patch, using netfilter CVS I am getting an error like Do you want to apply this patch [N/y/t/f/a/r/b/w/q/?] y Testing patch submitted/03_2.4.21.patch... Failed to patch copy

 
119921924659_538160007518Antony Stone
No, not using netfilter (unless you wanted to create a rule for each possible destination, just in case some packets got sent there (but then youd want to know what protocol was used, too, so

 
197322754258_508260007949Dave Barnum
On Sunday 25 April 2004 2:11 pm, Manikandan wrote: Somehow I managed to patch my kernel with pptp patch. But everytime when I load modules like ip_conntrack_pptp, ip_nat_pptp, I am getting an er

 
156129804889_598060007034Donovan J Edye
okay ... i decided to try them both ( the rule you posted and snort) to see ... ( one at a time :-) ) i just installed snort but i am stuck in the manual right now ... if it happens to have a snort c

 
112526894181_553260007681Manikandan
Hi, Is there a patch for the IPSec masquerading for kernel 2.4.x. Basically, I need to allow multiple clients in a private lan access the (IPSec) VPN server through the internet. I hit upon this link

 
103222714910_594660007965Roeland Moors
I have the following setup: CAPS = Device / Machine - ROUTER: WAN Address: xxxxxxxxx LAN Address: 192.168.40.1 - IPTABLES: 1 LAN Interface 192.168.40.5 (Gateway: 192.168.40.1) - PROXY: 1 LA

 
167524184156_533360007778Luke Deryckx
On Saturday 10 April 2004 6:18 am, Manikandan wrote: When I try to apply the patch, using netfilter CVS I am getting an error like Do you want to apply this patch [N/y/t/f/a/r/b/w/q/?] y T

 

 

home   |    register   |    login