Hi to everyone
I'm looking for a book or some other reference (web sites, mailing
lists...) that could introduce me to system/network administration (like
logs or account management, FTP/APACHE/SAMBA servers configuration...)
and network security (authentication, kerberos, SSH, VPN
Hi,
I have been playing around with kernel 2.4.2 lately, and suddenly my TCP
packets get rejected by some firewalls with the error:
TCP packet dropped (195.249.21.201-firewall.ao-vvs.dk[129.142.86.2]:
Protocol=TCP[SYN 0xc0] Port 58355-25): Bad TCP flags combination (received
on interface
Hi,
I have been playing around with kernel 2.4.2 lately, and suddenly my TCP
packets get rejected by some firewalls with the error:
TCP packet dropped (195.249.21.201-firewall.ao-vvs.dk[129.142.86.2]:
Protocol=TCP[SYN 0xc0] Port 58355-25): Bad TCP flags combination (received
on interface
*
| This error is taken from a firewall branded Raptor or something.
| Is the 2.4.2 kernel's TCP/IP stack non-standard, the firewall just plain
| stupid, or is there a security problem somewhere??
Have you chosen to use 'Explicit Congestion Notification' when you
compiled the kernel? If so,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:13:15PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Have you chosen to use 'Explicit Congestion Notification' when you
compiled the kernel? If so, many firewalls and routers drop packages
with this set. It bit me, and I couldn't find out what it was - look
at whether
*
| But a good one, it works!!
| Thanks!!
Nice to hear. :)
| Now, I wonder why this problem occours. I'll have to take a look at some RFC
| to figure out.. anyone who can point me in the right direction??
RFC 2481, iirc.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 04:43:14PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, I wonder why this problem occours. I'll have to take a look at some RFC
to figure out.. anyone who can point me in the right direction??
Best would be to take a look at linux-net mailinglist archives or
netfilter, the issue
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
That's dangerous ground to get into, there are always holes in *all*
distributions, regardless of how quickly they're fixed.
Yes.
There was talk on this list before about being able to neatly disable
network services.
What would
Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemons enabled when installed
etc. leaves something to be desired.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
What would be nice would be The One True Way to know if a service was
meant to be disabled or not. i.e. when I apt-get install
new_network_daemon I want it to look at
Hi David!
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, David Wright wrote:
Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemons
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
That's dangerous ground to get into, there are always holes in *all*
distributions, regardless of how quickly they're fixed.
Yes.
There was talk on this list before about being able to neatly disable
network services.
What would
Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemons enabled when installed
etc. leaves something to be desired.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote:
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Patrick Lambe wrote:
What would be nice would be The One True Way to know if a service was
meant to be disabled or not. i.e. when I apt-get install
new_network_daemon I want it to look at
Hi David!
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, David Wright wrote:
Quoting Simon Huggins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
There used to be an annoying dependency that stopped portmap being
removed at all. I think this has gone now (*removes portmap*) yep, but
the policy of Debian IMHO wrt open ports/daemons
15 matches
Mail list logo
