On 17 Jun 2003 at 22:02, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that
> > denies ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and
> > normally it monitors h
On 17 Jun 2003 at 22:02, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that
> > denies ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and
> > normally it monitors h
egards,
Peter Zyumbilev
Web Developer & Administrator
BIVOL BULGARIA
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: http://www.bivol.net <http://www.bivol.net>
tel.: +359 88 966940
> -Original Message-
> From: Rico -mc- Gloeckner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
egards,
Peter Zyumbilev
Web Developer & Administrator
BIVOL BULGARIA
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: http://www.bivol.net <http://www.bivol.net>
tel.: +359 88 966940
> -----Original Message-
> From: Rico -mc- Gloeckner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:27:16PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this router on
> the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path to see where
> an
> error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that denies
> ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and normally it
> monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this
>
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 at 10:15:49, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of
> > ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem?
>
> Your message was no
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:27:16PM +0200, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this router on
> the way to a server is reachable. I want to test the whole path to see where an
> error occured. Well, is it possible to "simulate&qu
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:27, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> What I'm looking for is a possibility to see if this router (that denies
> ping- packets) is still available? I have Nagios running and normally it
> monitors hosts via ping. So I need a replacement that would tell me if this
>
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 at 10:15:49, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> > both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of
> > ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem?
>
> Your message was no
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of
> ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem?
Your message was not clear, but it seems that you can see the router on a
traceroute but can
Hi,
both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of
ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem?
I need to check if the route to this router is alive - namely if the
router is up. Can I trick this into working by choosing a TOS for
ping manually
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:05, Stefan Neufeind wrote:
> both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of
> ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem?
Your message was not clear, but it seems that you can see the router on a
traceroute but can
Hi,
both tracert and ping use ICMP. So did they just block some kind of
ICMP-message (ping) for this router? How could I solve this problem?
I need to check if the route to this router is alive - namely if the
router is up. Can I trick this into working by choosing a TOS for
ping manually
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:12:11AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
>
> > If you are really doing professional services then you should know how
> > to tell your mailer to only send a mail to the list or either insert an
> > appropriate comment telling me,
).
I was looking at iputils_20001110.orig.tar.gz as downloaded from debian's
site. The manual page contains "iputils-ss990107".
> > I believe -U uses different functionality (old feature) and
> > bypasses this problem.
>
> -U does what? The version of ping that I
001, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
> > > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer
> > > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U
> > > switch to
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote:
> If I use the -U argument, then the message is gone.
>
> And there are no error (or like error) messages.
>
> any ideas?
Try upgrading your kernel (like I mentioned in a previous mail) or try
downgrading your ping.
> > >
If I use the -U argument, then the message is gone.
And there are no error (or like error) messages.
any ideas?
Thanks in advance.
>From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Christian Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: DEBIAN-ISP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subj
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
>
> > I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer
> > kernel. Maybe upgrade your kernel (2.4.4?) or see if your ping has a -U
> > sw
On 01-08-08 Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote:
> > I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And
> > just on the LAN.
> > Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
> I believe your ping comman
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Fernando Casas wrote:
> I´m getting this message every time i ping a machine on the LAN. And
> just on the LAN.
>
> Warning: time of day goes back, taking countermeasures.
I believe your ping command is using features only available in a newer
kernel. Maybe
I´m getting this message every time i ping a
machine on the LAN. And just on the LAN.
Warning: time of day goes back, taking
countermeasures.
Any ideas
Thanks in advance.
**
Fernando Casas
LAN-WAN-Internet-Seguridad
t;It' solved, there were 2 reasons.
> > Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching
> >it.
> > Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450.
> > It's a miracle it was working all together...
-=Czaj-nick=-
t;It' solved, there were 2 reasons.
> > Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching
> >it.
> > Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450.
> > It's a miracle it was working all together...
-=Czaj-nick=-
;> not work)
>>
>> 3. other bad hardware
>>
>> 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely.
>>
>
>It' solved, there were 2 reasons.
> Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching
>it.
> Ping times - some stupid
;> not work)
>>
>> 3. other bad hardware
>>
>> 4. bad libc6 or other library - not very likely.
>>
>
>It' solved, there were 2 reasons.
> Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching
>it.
> Ping times - some stupid guy inser
s.
Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching
it.
Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450.
It's a miracle it was working all together...
-=Czaj-nick=-
Core dumps - hmmm, our admin borken the kernel by incorrectly patching
it.
Ping times - some stupid guy inserted two different CPUs PII 400 and 450.
It's a miracle it was working all together...
-=Czaj-nick=-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ more /proc/misc
> Segmentation fault
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller c
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
he means you need to give your pigeons some time to
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:41:54PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> Anyway, my problem seems to be hardware:
>
> czajnik@earth:~$ more /proc/misc
> Segmentation fault
> czajnik@earth:~$
some possible causes:
1. bad memory - most likely.
2. bad swap partition (or bad disk controller causing
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
he means you need to give your pigeons some time t
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> > >
> > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
> >
> >
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian c
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
>
> http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was
sent, and comparng it to the system tim
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
> Look at this:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
> PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data b
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> > >
> > > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
> >
> >
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
> >
> > http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
>
> ?!? What do U mean ?
It was a joke ... rfc 1149 is IP over avian
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
>
> http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
?!? What do U mean ?
isn't the ping time measured by storing system time the ICMP ECHO was
sent, and comparng it to the system tim
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote:
>
> I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
> "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
> isn't MP-safe.
Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :).
Aren't you traveling several rfc1149 links?
http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/pinglogg.txt
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:24:39PM +0200, Przemyslaw Wegrzyn wrote:
>
> Look at this:
>
> czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
> PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data b
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
"Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Ken Seefried, CISSP
Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes:
Look at this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PI
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Ken Seefried wrote:
>
> I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
> "Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
> isn't MP-safe.
Thx, I'll check it tomorrow :).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Look at this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms
I think that you can get this if you have an MP kernel compiled without
"Enhanced Real Time Clock" support. The default clock driver apparently
isn't MP-safe.
Ken Seefried, CISSP
Przemyslaw Wegrzyn writes:
>
> Look at this:
>
> czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.1
Look at this:
czajnik@earth:~$ ping 156.17.209.1
PING 156.17.209.1 (156.17.209.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=247 time=5427.7 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=247 time=23.2 ms
64 bytes from 156.17.209.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=247 time=429492829.5 ms
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> /sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l
^
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
> > /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
^
--
Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
[1]
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> /sbin/ipchains -I imput -p icmp -l
^
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
> > /sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
^
--
Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
[1
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 at 21:46:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello All,
> Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be
> wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in
> particular)
>
> Thanks,
>
> D. Ghost
>
Packa
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 at 21:46:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello All,
> Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be
> wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in
> particular)
>
> Thanks,
>
> D. Ghost
>
Pack
>
> -jg
>
> --
> Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM
> To: debian-isp
> Subject: ping
>
> Hello All,
> Is there a
Sure, just use ipchains:
/sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
-jg
--
Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM
To: debian-isp
Subject: ping
Hello All,
Is t
Hello All,
Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be
wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in
particular)
Thanks,
D. Ghost
>
> -jg
>
> --
> Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM
> To: debian-isp
> Subject: ping
>
> Hello All,
> Is ther
Sure, just use ipchains:
/sbin/ipchains -I input -p icmp -l
-jg
--
Jeremy L. Gaddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:46 PM
To: debian-isp
Subject: ping
Hello All,
Is t
Hello All,
Is there a way to log incoming ICMP requests? What would have to be
wrapped in order to basically log all requests of the machine (pings in
particular)
Thanks,
D. Ghost
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> > Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
> > box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
> >
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
> box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
> those kinds of things.
Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to some ma
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 08:39:41PM +0200, Sven Burgener wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> > Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
> > box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
> >
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:13:07PM -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
> Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a
> box after a few packets hit it. As you said Debian is good about
> those kinds of things.
Are these things just malformed packets / frames sent to som
At 11:33 AM 9/13/00 -0600, Nathan wrote:
>What ping of death attacks?
>
>The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
>quick after they came out.
Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a box after a
few packets hit it. As you said De
At 11:33 AM 9/13/00 -0600, Nathan wrote:
>What ping of death attacks?
>
>The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
>quick after they came out.
Maybe he means ping floods? Pings of death usually will crash a box after a
few packets hit it. As you sa
What ping of death attacks?
The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
quick after they came out.
On Wed, 13 Sep 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote:
> Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here
> anyway.
>
> Is Linux Debian
Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here
anyway.
Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to "ping of death" DOS attacks?
Thanks.
What ping of death attacks?
The only ones I have heard of, were fixed with kernel patches seriously
quick after they came out.
On Wed, 13 Sep 100, Allen Ahoffman wrote:
> Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here
> anyway.
>
> Is Linux Debian
Yes, I should find this elsewhere, but for speed's sake I'll ask here
anyway.
Is Linux Debian or other vulnerable to "ping of death" DOS attacks?
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
67 matches
Mail list logo
