On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:08:14AM +, Nick Boyce wrote:
> Merry Happy Season Of Jollyness everyone
> Nick Boyce
> Bristol, UK
I'll second that: A Merry Christmas and a bug-free New
Year to all!
Dale Amon
Belfast, UK and/or Ireland ;-^
--
-
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +,
Antony Gelberg wrote:
> When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt
> failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any
> "verifying username..." message.
>
Why do you need freeswan if you are trying to set
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, outsider wrote:
Last time I frequently get messages like
"smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to
scan me or what is the reason fo
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote:
> But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> IP-address.
The worms are targetting random IP addresses. The IP address you have
tomorrow is just as likely to get scanned as the one you have today.
(Technically not
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100,
outsider wrote:
> But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> IP-address.
>
There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time
and too little brain under their hulls out there. So having a dynamic IP
a
That's typical: IP's are really scanned like ..., 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3.5, 1.2.3.6, ... etc.
> > You are being scanned. Get used to it. You're not specifically being
> > targetted, but rather your IP address was randomly generated by some
> > worm on some Windows box and a connection attempt was made.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote:
> But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> IP-address.
Besides what everyone else said... I've also seen it
happen that someone pulls an address from dhcp that
was perhaps minutes before being used by someone ru
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
> > I can't think of any other rea
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:46PM +0100, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +,
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
> > When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt
> > failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any
> > "
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100,
> outsider wrote:
>
> > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> > IP-address.
> >
> There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time
> and
Sorry,
but tunnel ipsec in l2tp is quite normal. You need it to turn around the nat
problem of ipsec.
- Original Message -
From: "Jose Luis Domingo Lopez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: IPSec WinXP interop
> On Wednesd
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:08:14AM +, Nick Boyce wrote:
> Merry Happy Season Of Jollyness everyone
> Nick Boyce
> Bristol, UK
I'll second that: A Merry Christmas and a bug-free New
Year to all!
Dale Amon
Belfast, UK and/or Ireland ;-^
--
-
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +,
Antony Gelberg wrote:
> When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt
> failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any
> "verifying username..." message.
>
Why do you need freeswan if you are trying to set
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, outsider wrote:
Last time I frequently get messages like
"smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to
scan me or what is the reason
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote:
> But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> IP-address.
The worms are targetting random IP addresses. The IP address you have
tomorrow is just as likely to get scanned as the one you have today.
(Technically not
That's typical: IP's are really scanned like ..., 1.2.3.4, 1.2.3.5, 1.2.3.6,
... etc.
> > You are being scanned. Get used to it. You're not specifically being
> > targetted, but rather your IP address was randomly generated by some
> > worm on some Windows box and a connection attempt was made.
On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100,
outsider wrote:
> But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> IP-address.
>
There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time
and too little brain under their hulls out there. So having a dynamic IP
a
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:33:54PM +0100, outsider wrote:
> But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> IP-address.
Besides what everyone else said... I've also seen it
happen that someone pulls an address from dhcp that
was perhaps minutes before being used by someone ru
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
> > I can't think of any other rea
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:40:46PM +0100, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 00:49:31 +,
> Antony Gelberg wrote:
>
> > When I try to log in, I get "Error 792: The L2TP connection attempt
> > failed because security negotiation timed out." I don't get any
> > "
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Jose Luis Domingo Lopez wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2003, at 15:33:54 +0100,
> outsider wrote:
>
> > But I have a dynamic IP. Every time I boot my system I get another
> > IP-address.
> >
> There is no end of viruses, worms, and people with too much free time
> and
Sorry,
but tunnel ipsec in l2tp is quite normal. You need it to turn around the nat
problem of ipsec.
- Original Message -
From: "Jose Luis Domingo Lopez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: IPSec WinXP interop
> On Wednesday, 24 December 200
22 matches
Mail list logo