RE: [leaf-user] PARTNERSHIP
Apparently once you start dealing with them, they start asking you to send them money for various administrative overheads. They promise to reimburse you once the money has been transferred. As you can guess, they just keep asking for more and more money, until you finally give up! They key phrase is: WHILE 5% WILL BE FOR EXPENSES BOTH PARTIES MIGHT HAVE INCURED DURING THE PROCESS OF TRANSFERING. 5% of 26,000,000 USD is a whopping: 1,300,000 USD! Greed SIGH! BTW Why are we getting these on this mailing list? Isn't this a closed list? If so, surely they can be booted off, as I've noticed quite a few slipping through recently. Regards Nick - Nick Taylor |EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Tel:0118-936-1075 Taylor Made Solutions| WWW:http://www.t-m-s.co.uk |Fax:0118-936-1079 | PGP Public Key: 0x4D4771F6 |Mob:0777-415-1391 Development,Training | 8202 D214 C49A 4C16 2625 | Consultancy | A397 74F1 F422 4D47 71F6 | Wokingham UK - -Original Message- From: Matt Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 August 2003 21:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [leaf-user] PARTNERSHIP how do they make money off of this? i never understood the motivation behind it... aside from maybe getting your email address to sell to marketing companies, but there's more efficient ways of getting email addresses than this... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of BAMANGA TUTU Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [leaf-user] PARTNERSHIP GREETINGS. IN ORDER TO TRANSFER OUT (USD 26 MILLION DOLLARS) FROM OUR BANK. I HAVE THE COURAGE TO ASK YOU TO LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND HONEST PERSON WHO WILL BE CAPABLE FOR THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS BELIEVING THAT YOU WILL NEVER LET ME DOWN EITHER NOW OR IN FUTURE. I AM MR.BAMANGA TUTU AN ACCOUNTANT IN UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC. (UBA). THERE IS AN ACCOUNT OPENED IN THIS BANK IN 1980 AND SINCE 1990 NOBODY HAS OPERATED ON THIS ACCOUNT AGAIN. AFTER GOING THROUGH SOME OLD FILES IN THE RECORDS I DISCOVERED THAT IF I DO NOT REMITT THIS MONEY OUT URGENTLY IT WILL BE FORFEITED FOR NOTHING. THE OWNER OF THIS ACCOUNT IS MR. SMITH B. ANDREAS, A FOREIGNER, AND THE MANAGER OF PETRO - TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, A CHEMICAL ENGINEER BY PROFESSION AND HE DIED IN MOTOR ACCIDENT ALONG LAGOS -IBADAN EXPRESS WAY SINCE 1990. NO OTHER PERSON KNOWS ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT OR ANY THING CONCERNING IT, THE ACCOUNT HAS NO OTHER BENEFICIARY AND MY INVESTIGATION PROVED TO ME AS WELL THAT THIS COMPANY DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ACCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS USD (26 MILLION DOLLARS). I WANT TO TRANSFER THIS MONEY INTO A SAFE FOREIGNERS ACCOUNT ABROAD BUT I DON'T KNOW ANY FOREIGNER, I AM ONLY CONTACTING YOU AS A FOREIGNER BECAUSE THIS MONEY CAN NOT BE APPROVED TO A LOCAL BANK HERE, BUT CAN ONLY BE APPROVED TO ANY FOREIGNACCOUNT BECAUSE THE MONEY IS IN US DOLLARS AND THE FORMER OWNER OF THE ACCOUNT IS MR. SMITH B. ANDREAS IS A FOREIGNER TOO. I KNOW THAT THIS MASSAGE WILL COME TO YOU AS A SURPRISE AS WE DON'T KNOW OUR SELVES BEFORE, BUT BE SURE THAT IT IS REAL AND A GENUINE BUSINESS.ONLY GOT YOUR CONTACT ADDRESS FROM THE COMPUTER ,WITHBELIEVE IN GOD THAT YOU WILL NEVER LET ME DOWN IN THIS BUSINESS YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON THAT I HAVE CONTACTED IN THIS BUSINESS, SO PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY SO THAT I WILL INFORM YOU THE NEXT STEP TO TAKE URGENTLY. I WANT US TO SEE FACE TO FACE OR SIGN A BINDING AGREEMENT TO BIND US TOGETHER SO THAT YOU CAN RECIEVE THIS MONEY INTO A FORIEGN ACCOUNT OR ANY ACCOUNT OF YOUR CHOICE WHERE THE FUND WILL BE REMMITTED.AND I WILL FLY TO YOUR COUNTRY FOR WITHDRAWAL AND SHARING AND OTHER INVESTMENTS. I AM CONTACTING YOU BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO INVOLVE A FOREIGNER WITH FOREIGN ACCOUNT AND FOREIGN BENEFICIARY. I NEED YOUR CO-OPERATION TO MAKE THIS WORK FINE. BECAUSE THE MANAGEMENT IS READY TO APPROVE THIS PAYMENT TO ANY FOREIGNER WHO HAS CORRECT INFORMATION OF THIS ACCOUNT, WHICH I WILL GIVE TO YOU LATER IMMEDIATELY, IF YOU ARE ABLE AND WITH CAPABILITY TO HANDLE SUCH AMOUNT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE AND TRUST ACCORDING TO MY INSTRUCTIONS AND ADVICE FOR OUR MUTUAL BENEFIT BECAUSE THIS OPPORTUNITY WILL NEVER COME AGAIN IN MY LIFE. I NEED TRUTHFUL PERSON IN THIS BUSINESS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MAKE MISTAKE I NEED YOURSTRONG ASSURANCE AND TRUST. WITH MY POSITION NOW IN THE OFFICE I CAN TRANSFER THIS MONEY TO ANY FOREIGNERS RELIABLE ACCOUNT WHICH YOU CAN PROVIDE WITH ASSURANCE THAT THIS MONEY WILL BE INTACT PENDING MY PHYSICAL ARRIVAL IN YOUR COUNTRY FOR SHARING. YOU CAN ALSO COME TO DISCUSS WITH ME FACE TO FACE AFTER WHICH I WILL MAKE THIS REMITTANCE IN YOUR PRESENCE AND TWO OF US WILL FLY
RE: [leaf-user] sshd taking too long ?
Again, I could well be wrong here, but: I believe the delay occurs when the ssh daemon cannot resolve the client IP address. Updating the /etc/hosts file is the simplest way of ensuring that the client IP address is resolvable, but you could also use a DNS server. Just make sure that /etc/resolv.conf is up to date. Obviously you'll need to be running a DNS server somewhere for this to work! And it'll need to be configured with all of your client machines. I'm sure someone will jump in if I'm advising you wrongly! Regards Nick -Original Message- From: Doug Hite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 April 2003 16:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [leaf-user] sshd taking too long ? I added 192.168.3.50 to the hosts file, and this seems to have eliminated the delay. Strange that the log at the debug level did not show any errors. Is there a config change in sshd that would eliminate the delay without the need for me to put in every ip I might access my router from in the hosts file ? thanks - doug === Nick Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/03 03:25PM I seem to recall that this happens if the connecting machine (the client) doesn't have an entry in the Bering machine's (the host) /etc/hosts file. Have you made sure that: 192.168.3.50 exists in the /etc/hosts file on the Bering box? Regards Nick Hello all - I am trying to troubleshoot my Bering 1.0 router install with sshd (from http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/ ) The first time I try to connect with an ssh client it takes anywhere from 25 to 50 seconds. I can then immediately disconnect, and reconnect, and this time it does it almost immediately. I can leave it disconnected for a few hours, and then try again, and it will take 25 to 50 seconds to connect again. I have turned on the debugging - and have attached a sample of one of these long waits. I also included an entry that seems to be in the log about once per hour - where it is regenerating the RSA key. My working guess is that the long wait happens with the first connection after a new key has generated. Has anyone else had this problem ? I did look for an entry about reverse DNS lookup failing in the AUTH log, and did not find anything like that. Here is the log section- Mar 31 12:11:08 firewall sshd[30296]: Generating new 768 bit RSA key. Mar 31 12:11:09 firewall sshd[30296]: RSA key generation complete. Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[9276]: Connection from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[30296]: debug1: Forked child 9276. Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Client protocol version 1.99; client software version 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell for Windows Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: no match: 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell for Windows Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0 Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Local version string SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.5p1 Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: Failed none for root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: Accepted password for root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: monitor_child_preauth: root has been authenticated by privileged process Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 1 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Entering interactive session for SSH2. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 3 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 5 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_init_dispatch_20 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_open: ctype session rchan 0 win 1 max 512 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: input_session_request Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: new [server-session] Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: init Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: session 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: session 0: link with channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_open: confirm session Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request pty-req reply 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req pty-req Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Allocating pty. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc /dev/ttyp0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall
RE: [leaf-user] sshd taking too long ?
I seem to recall that this happens if the connecting machine (the client) doesn't have an entry in the Bering machine's (the host) /etc/hosts file. Have you made sure that: 192.168.3.50 exists in the /etc/hosts file on the Bering box? Regards Nick -Original Message- From: Doug Hite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March 2003 20:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [leaf-user] sshd taking too long ? Hello all - I am trying to troubleshoot my Bering 1.0 router install with sshd (from http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/ ) The first time I try to connect with an ssh client it takes anywhere from 25 to 50 seconds. I can then immediately disconnect, and reconnect, and this time it does it almost immediately. I can leave it disconnected for a few hours, and then try again, and it will take 25 to 50 seconds to connect again. I have turned on the debugging - and have attached a sample of one of these long waits. I also included an entry that seems to be in the log about once per hour - where it is regenerating the RSA key. My working guess is that the long wait happens with the first connection after a new key has generated. Has anyone else had this problem ? I did look for an entry about reverse DNS lookup failing in the AUTH log, and did not find anything like that. Here is the log section- Mar 31 12:11:08 firewall sshd[30296]: Generating new 768 bit RSA key. Mar 31 12:11:09 firewall sshd[30296]: RSA key generation complete. Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[9276]: Connection from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[30296]: debug1: Forked child 9276. Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Client protocol version 1.99; client software version 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell for Windows Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: no match: 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell for Windows Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0 Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Local version string SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.5p1 Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: Failed none for root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: Accepted password for root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: monitor_child_preauth: root has been authenticated by privileged process Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 1 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Entering interactive session for SSH2. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 3 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 5 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_init_dispatch_20 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_open: ctype session rchan 0 win 1 max 512 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: input_session_request Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: new [server-session] Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: init Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: session 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: session 0: link with channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_open: confirm session Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request pty-req reply 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req pty-req Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Allocating pty. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc /dev/ttyp0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request shell reply 1 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req shell Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 4 setting TCP_NODELAY Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: rfd 7 isatty Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 7 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[15082]: debug1: Setting controlling tty using TIOCSCTTY. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request window-change reply 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req window-change Mar 31 13:24:58 firewall sshd[15082]: debug1: permanently_set_uid: 0/0 ** notice the time is only a few seconds until that last step - 28 seconds. What is happening here ? addtional note :
RE: [leaf-user] Shorewall log
I'm quite new to this but as I understand it: Someone at 64.214.177.149 is attempting to connect using the TCP protocol from port 3463 to port 445 on 209.233.16.123. The machine at 209.233.16.123 is an address assigned to you. If you look up TCP port 445 you'll find something similar to the following: Protocol: TCP Port: 445 Description: Microsoft Networking (Windows 2000/XP) TCP port 445 is used for *direct* Microsoft Networking access. More specifically, it enables direct TCP/IP access to Microsoft Networking functions WITHOUT the need for a Netbios layer. This service is only implemented in the more recent verions of Windows (e.g. Windows 2000 and XP). So it looks like someone is trying to probe your machine/network using this vulnerable port, but your firewall is stopping them - exactly what it should be doing! I'm sure someone will correct me if I've led you astray... Regards Nick -Original Message- From: Phil Faris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 March 2003 17:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [leaf-user] Shorewall log Can anyone tell me what this Shorewall log entry means? I get about fifty to sixty hits like this every day. Mar 29 16:12:57 Gateway Shorewall:net2all:DROP: IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:20:af:38:31:c5:00:10:67:00:b5:6b:08:00 SRC=64.214.177.149 DST=209.233.16.123 LEN=48 TOS=00 PREC=0x00 TTL=111 ID=28282 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=3463 DPT=445 SEQ=3057110942 ACK=0 WINDOW=16384 SYN URGP=0 Phil Faris --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en -- -- leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] A Couple Of Problems...
Hi, I'm using Bering 1.1 and overall think it's wonderful. There are just a couple of things that I'm having difficulty with: 1) I can't get Bering to send me emails. Every hour there's an entry in cron.log similar to the following: MAIL (mailed 19 bytes of output but got status 0x0001 ) If I use the MAIL command from the command-line, I can get it to send a message, but never via cron. I've edited the Master LRP Settings and POSIXness Mail Settings with valid entries for my mail server. Incidentally I discovered that pointing it at an Exchange 5.5 server does not work, as the mail command appears to disagree with Exchange as to the correct sequence of an SMTP conversation... I've now re-pointed it at a Linux box, running Sendmail and all is well on that front. 2) ULOGD - I'm trying to get the MySQL interface working. I noticed that the ulogd_MYSQL.so library was missing, so I downloaded the source for 0.98 and compiled my own. After restarting ULOGD I got an error in the ULOGD.LOG stating that a libmysqlclient.so library was needed, which I then copied from my Debian machine. Now ULOGD fires up with no problems, but even though I've created a MySQL database according to the ULOGD script, and have confirmed the username/password to log in to, I never get any log entries written to the database... If I try to use the ULOGD executable that I compiled, then I get a segmentation fault error from Linux. Could this be a clue? Perhaps the libraries that I have compiled on Debian don't work on Bering? Does anyone have a ulogd_MYSQL.so and a libmysqlclient.so that they could send me that will work? 3) I downloaded the labrea.lrp from Charles' site, and after overcoming the problems with the ethernet interface not staying in promiscuous mode (via downloading ifconf.lrp, which appears to contain a compatible ifconfig command), it appears to start OK. Does anyone know if this version of LaBrea (v2.2) works with Bering 1.1? I ask because even if I've left it running for a day, with verbose logging on, nothing ever appears in any logfile. Upon startup the kernel does issue the following message: LaBrea uses obsolete (PF_INET,SOCK_PACKET) Which I was wondering if that is significant? Any pointers that anyone could give me would be very much appreciated! Thanks Nick - Nick Taylor |EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Tel:0118-936-1075 Taylor Made Solutions| WWW:http://www.t-m-s.co.uk |Fax:0118-936-1079 | PGP Public Key: 0x4D4771F6 |Mob:0777-415-1391 Development,Training | 8202 D214 C49A 4C16 2625 | Consultancy | A397 74F1 F422 4D47 71F6 | Wokingham UK - --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] A Couple Of Problems...
Thanks Eric,
I can't see the line that you're referring to in my copy of the
multicron-p script.
Around line 33, I have the following:
main () {
prog=`basename $0`
case $prog in
*-p ) periodic;;
*-d ) daily ;;
*-w ) weekly ;;
*-m ) monthly ;;
* ) echo Usage: Call (prog) as (prog)-p, -d, -w, or -m;
exit 1 ;;
esac
}
This isn't the echo line that you were referring to is it?
Anything else I can try?
Thanks
Nick
-Original Message-
From: Eric Wolzak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 March 2003 16:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nick Taylor
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] A Couple Of Problems...
Hello Nick
I'm using Bering 1.1 and overall think it's wonderful. There are
just a couple of things that I'm having difficulty with:
1) I can't get Bering to send me emails. Every hour there's an
entry in cron.log similar to the following:
MAIL (mailed 19 bytes of output but got status 0x0001 )
sorry to see it is still there, this is due to a line i inserted in a
debugging session and forgot to remove.
Remove the line:
# echo $prog
in routine main() around linenr 33.
in the multicron-p script
If I use the MAIL command from the command-line, I can get it
to send a message, but never via cron.
Did you set the
lrp_SPACECHECK=YES
lrp_SC_MAIL_LEVEL=2
in this settings
Cron will only send a message if the Space is so limited that
it had to
go to step 2 deleting files.
If this situation doesn't occur, you won't get mail :)
If you want a mail every day, for example get your log files mailed
make a script like you did by hand and inserted as cron job.
Remember to set the full path to executables !
Incidentally I discovered that pointing it at an Exchange 5.5
server does not work, as the mail command appears to disagree
with Exchange as to the correct sequence of an SMTP
conversation...
(who is right ;) )
I've now re-pointed it at a Linux box, running Sendmail and all
is well on that front.
Any pointers that anyone could give me would be very much
appreciated!
Thanks
Nick
Regards
Eric Wolzak
member of the Bering Crew
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The debugger
for complex code. Debugging C/C++ programs can leave you feeling lost and
disoriented. TotalView can help you find your way. Available on major UNIX
and Linux platforms. Try it free. www.etnus.com
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] Bering 1.1 Web Interface
I've managed to get Bering/Shorewall running, and am happy with the rules that I've set in Shorewall to define which packets can pass, and which should be dropped. Shorewall is logging packets which are rejected/blocked, which I believe is correct. Having reviewed the blocked packets, I'm happy that it did block them - most of them are SQL Slammer probes on UDP/1434. So Why does the web-interface show the Firewall as Error when there are lots of rejected/dropped packets? Surely that's what the Firewall should be doing? Or am I completely wrong? Thanks Nick --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] FW: Proxy-ARP Bering 1.1
Did anyone have a solution to my question? Sorry to ask again, but nothing came through here... Regards Nick -Original Message- From: Nick Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 February 2003 20:33 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [leaf-user] Proxy-ARP Bering 1.1 I've managed to get Bering 1.1 running on my old 486SX, thanks to several people on this list. I have a slightly weird requirement which I've managed to do using LRP 2.9.8, but am having difficulty with Bering 1.1. My setup is as follows: ISP | | ADSL Router | 62.49.244.241 | | WAN (62.49.244.240/29) | | 62.49.244.242 (eth0) | LRP-62.49.244.254 (eth1)-- DMZ (62.49.244.248/29) | 10.0.0.200 (eth2) | | LAN (10.0.0.0/8) My ISP has assigned us 62.49.244.240/28, which I have further subnetted into: 62.49.244.240/29 and 62.49.244.248/29. As I have no control over the ADSL Router that our ISP has provided I use proxy-arp to advertise the DMZ network on the WAN interface and vice-versa. Using Shorewall, how can I achieve the equivalent to the following commands which appear to work with LRP 2.9.8, but give an error with Bering 1.1: ARP -i eth0 -Ds 62.49.244.248 eth0 netmask 255.255.255.248 pub ARP -i eth1 -Ds 62.49.244.240 eth1 netmask 255.255.255.248 pub Thanks once again, Nick --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] FW: Proxy-ARP Bering 1.1
I did, but it's probably me being dense, but is there a way to publish an entire subnet rather than specifying each host? With the command: arp -i eth0 62.49.244.240 eth0 netmask 255.255.255.248 pub for example, I was/am able to publish all of the addresses... Thanks Nick -Original Message- From: Tom Eastep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 February 2003 23:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [leaf-user] FW: Proxy-ARP Bering 1.1 --On Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:06:22 AM + Nick Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did anyone have a solution to my question? Sorry to ask again, but nothing came through here... Did you look at http://www.shorewall.net/ProxyARP.htm? -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy Shoreline,\ http://www.shorewall.net Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp -- -- leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies! Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships. Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more. www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] Proxy-ARP Bering 1.1
I've managed to get Bering 1.1 running on my old 486SX, thanks to several people on this list. I have a slightly weird requirement which I've managed to do using LRP 2.9.8, but am having difficulty with Bering 1.1. My setup is as follows: ISP | | ADSL Router | 62.49.244.241 | | WAN (62.49.244.240/29) | | 62.49.244.242 (eth0) | LRP-62.49.244.254 (eth1)-- DMZ (62.49.244.248/29) | 10.0.0.200 (eth2) | | LAN (10.0.0.0/8) My ISP has assigned us 62.49.244.240/28, which I have further subnetted into: 62.49.244.240/29 and 62.49.244.248/29. As I have no control over the ADSL Router that our ISP has provided I use proxy-arp to advertise the DMZ network on the WAN interface and vice-versa. Using Shorewall, how can I achieve the equivalent to the following commands which appear to work with LRP 2.9.8, but give an error with Bering 1.1: ARP -i eth0 -Ds 62.49.244.248 eth0 netmask 255.255.255.248 pub ARP -i eth1 -Ds 62.49.244.240 eth1 netmask 255.255.255.248 pub Thanks once again, Nick --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] Bering Kernel Source?
Thanks Peter, Just one more question: I've downloaded the source for kernel 2.4.20 from kernel.org. I'm assuming that using the config file that you pointed me to, adjusted so that the Math-Emulation flag is on, I should be able to build the kernel that I need? The patches that were in the 1.1 directory: bridge-nf-0.0.7-against-2.4.19.diff.gz grsecurity-1.9.9c-2.4.20.patch.gz helpers-2.4.20.patch.gz linux-2.4.19-openssl-0.9.6b-mppe.patch.gz I assume that I apply all of these to the 2.4.20 source that I've obtained? Is that correct? I guess I'm a little confused as some of these patches appear to be for 2.4.19... Once I've done all that, I'm also assuming that I can use the precompiled modules for 2.4.20 without having to worry about recompiling them too. Could someone let me know if I'm way off track here? Thanks Nick -Original Message- From: Peter Mueller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 February 2003 00:59 To: 'Nick Taylor'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [leaf-user] Bering Kernel Source? Hi Nick, I'd like to try Bering, but only have a 486SX to try it out on, so I believe that I'll need to recompile the kernel. I think this is correct, Bering is compiled for 486DX by default.. The only sources that I can find are for 2.4.18, which was for Bering 1.0-RC1. Will this work with 1.1, or will I need to get the source for 2.4.20? http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/bering/latest/ specifically, http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/bering/latest/developm ent/kernel/Ber ing-2.4.20.config and the packages from the image file are what you'll need. Not having tried it, can a 2.4 kernel be recompiled to work on a 486SX, or am I going to slam into a brick-wall straight away on that front? I think you should be O.K. as long as you recompile your kernel. Hope that helps, Peter --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] Bering Kernel Source?
I'd like to try Bering, but only have a 486SX to try it out on, so I believe that I'll need to recompile the kernel. The only sources that I can find are for 2.4.18, which was for Bering 1.0-RC1. Will this work with 1.1, or will I need to get the source for 2.4.20? Not having tried it, can a 2.4 kernel be recompiled to work on a 486SX, or am I going to slam into a brick-wall straight away on that front? Thanks Nick --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] Non-FPU Kernels
Thanks for this Lynn. Just to clarify - Can I use the Dachstein Image together with the 2.2.16-1-386-NoFPU kernel? I ask because it seems that the kernel in the image is 2.2.19, and I'm wondering if the older one will work? Is this my only option? Could Bering work in this setup? Regards Nick -Original Message- From: Lynn Avants [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 February 2003 03:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Non-FPU Kernels On Monday 10 February 2003 07:40 pm, Nick Taylor wrote: I've been inspecting the various versions of LEAF, and can't readily identify which of them might work in my 486SX, i.e. Non-FPU. I'm quite interested in the Bering, Dachstein, and Oxygen distributions. Could someone let me know which of these would work in my ancient machine? Charles has some non-FPU kernels for Dachstein at: http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/cstein -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Firewall Project developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com -- -- leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] Non-FPU Kernels
I've been inspecting the various versions of LEAF, and can't readily identify which of them might work in my 486SX, i.e. Non-FPU. I'm quite interested in the Bering, Dachstein, and Oxygen distributions. Could someone let me know which of these would work in my ancient machine? Many thanks Nick --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
