On Lu, 21 feb 11, 12:59:56, Petrus Validus wrote:
> > Get away from the web interface. Install Icedove/Evolution/Mutt and use
> > Google's IMAPs interface.
>
> I use Evolution and Mutt with Google's IMAP interface. It works nicely
> but I've noticed this quirky behavior when using a client via
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Greg Madden wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday 20 February 2011 03:03:35 pm Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > * On 2011 20 Feb 14:22 -0600, Elmer E. Dow wrote:
> > > Greetings:
> > >
> > > I'd like to set up a network with a firewall fo
> Get away from the web interface. Install Icedove/Evolution/Mutt and use
> Google's IMAPs interface.
I use Evolution and Mutt with Google's IMAP interface. It works nicely
but I've noticed this quirky behavior when using a client via IMAP. My
messages appear in multiple places at the same t
* On 2011 20 Feb 22:06 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Some consumer wireless routers don't like to do DHCP pass through, and
> won't serve DHCP when configured as a bridge, in which case the Linux
> firewall will have to serve DHCP. If the wireless router won't pass
00
>>> From: Ron Johnson
>>> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>>> Subject: Re: To gmail or not to gmail (was Re: Fwd: selecting old
>>> machines for
>>> firewall/router use)
>>> Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:54:49 + (UTC)
>>> Resent-From: debi
On 02/21/2011 12:17 AM, Peter Tynan wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Ron Johnson wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:54:27 -0600
From: Ron Johnson
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: To gmail or not to gmail (was Re: Fwd: selecting old
machines for
firewall/router use)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Ron Johnson wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:54:27 -0600
From: Ron Johnson
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: To gmail or not to gmail (was Re: Fwd: selecting old machines for
firewall/router use)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:54:49 + (UTC)
Resent
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Ron Johnson wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:54:27 -0600
From: Ron Johnson
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: To gmail or not to gmail (was Re: Fwd: selecting old machines for
firewall/router use)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:54:49 + (UTC)
Resent
On 02/20/2011 11:01 PM, Peter Tynan wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Ron Johnson wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:02:48 -0600
From: Ron Johnson
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: To gmail or not to gmail (was Re: Fwd: selecting old
machines for
firewall/router use)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb
e .
> Why I'm thinking off doing the same thing.
> Entry box with firewall/router and port forwarding to another old stackable
> desktop for email.
> Upside?
> Networking knowledge!
> Enough for a small business, and the basis to look at larger projects.
> Regards,
>
>
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011, Ron Johnson wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:02:48 -0600
From: Ron Johnson
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: To gmail or not to gmail (was Re: Fwd: selecting old machines for
firewall/router use)
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:03:05 + (UTC)
Resent-From
John Hasler put forth on 2/20/2011 3:08 PM:
> Elmer writes:
>> 300 Mhz processor boot manager on 3.5-inch diskette so it can boot
>> from diskette, CD or hard drive
>
> That'll work fine as long as it has enough RAM to install Debian.
Not to mention disk space. Even though the OP asked on this l
Elmer E. Dow put forth on 2/20/2011 2:02 PM:
> Greetings:
>
> I'd like to set up a network with a firewall for my home computers for
> security, control and convenience (file sharing), as well as to learn
> about networking. We have the Internet entering via a Motorol
On 02/20/2011 09:42 PM, Heddle Weaver wrote:
Got to get away from gmail. No list reply feature.
Get away from the web interface. Install Icedove/Evolution/Mutt and
use Google's IMAPs interface.
--
"The normal condition of mankind is tyranny and misery."
Milton Friedman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Got to get away from gmail. No list reply feature.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Heddle Weaver
Date: 21 February 2011 13:41
Subject: Re: selecting old machines for firewall/router use
To: Greg Madden
On 21 February 2011 12:26, Greg Madden wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday 20
On Sunday 20 February 2011 03:03:35 pm Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2011 20 Feb 14:22 -0600, Elmer E. Dow wrote:
> > Greetings:
> >
> > I'd like to set up a network with a firewall for my home computers
> > for security, control and convenience (file sharing
* On 2011 20 Feb 14:22 -0600, Elmer E. Dow wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> I'd like to set up a network with a firewall for my home computers
> for security, control and convenience (file sharing), as well as to
> learn about networking. We have the Internet entering via a Motorol
Elmer writes:
> 300 Mhz processor boot manager on 3.5-inch diskette so it can boot
> from diskette, CD or hard drive
That'll work fine as long as it has enough RAM to install Debian.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
us there's that built-in jack on
> the board)
>
> I'm leaning toward using the above machine since it has both pci and isa
> slots for nics (and an ethernet jack on the motherboard) so I won't have to
> buy a switch right away. I'll be able to connect the fire
Greetings:
I'd like to set up a network with a firewall for my home computers for
security, control and convenience (file sharing), as well as to learn
about networking. We have the Internet entering via a Motorola DSL modem
and it currently passes data through a NetGear wireless router
AN" are at the same "hostile"
> > > level and so both should be treated. Why should you accept
> > > incomming ssh traffic from the "hostile lan/wan"? I shouldn't...
> > > unless:
> >
> > Exactly my point - that personal firewall &#
ed. Why should you accept
> > incomming ssh traffic from the "hostile lan/wan"? I shouldn't...
> > unless:
>
> Exactly my point - that personal firewall 'profiles' are less useful
> than they might appear at first blush, since you pretty much need to
> tre
quot;neighbors" can represent a potential security risk (they have
> >> "physical" access to your machine), meaning that you should enforce
> >> your computer firewall rules to treat all of the LAN computers as
> >> "untrusted" hosts which BTW is n
sical" access to your machine), meaning that you should enforce
>> your computer firewall rules to treat all of the LAN computers as
>> "untrusted" hosts which BTW is not the normal behavior of a firewall
>> (in a LAN environment, internal hosts are the "goo
.
> >
> > What *other* protection do you think is necessary, something that you
> > would not do anyway if the same computer was connected *directly* to the
> > internet (no NAT and/or external firewall)?
>
> Open wifi hot-spots (or open networks) are dangerous because
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:17:55 +0200, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> Open wifi hot-spots (or open networks) are dangerous because all your
>> "neighbors" can represent a potential security risk (they have
>> "physical" access to your machine), meaning that you sh
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:21:33 -0800
Mark wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:15:15 -0800
> > Mark wrote:
...
> > > This is a great idea; I do this when traveling with a work laptop,
> > booting
> > > Ubuntu off a live usb stick. With the 10.10
> Open wifi hot-spots (or open networks) are dangerous because all your
> "neighbors" can represent a potential security risk (they have "physical"
> access to your machine), meaning that you should enforce your computer
> firewall rules to treat all of the LA
On Du, 23 ian 11, 14:21:33, Mark wrote:
>
> For me, when it's a work computer that has a Windows-only installation on
> it, running Ubuntu from a Live CD is the only allowable way to use Linux on
> the computer.
Debian installs just fine on USB sticks ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:15:15 -0800
> Mark wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Klistvud
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > For people really concerned with their security in public wifi spots,
> > > perhaps the best I can recommend is: just run off
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:15:15 -0800
Mark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Klistvud wrote:
>
> >
> > For people really concerned with their security in public wifi spots,
> > perhaps the best I can recommend is: just run off of a live CD. It's really
> > a great security policy once you ge
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Klistvud wrote:
>
> For people really concerned with their security in public wifi spots,
> perhaps the best I can recommend is: just run off of a live CD. It's really
> a great security policy once you get used to it being somewhat slower; if
> you can get suspend
Dne, 07. 01. 2011 19:53:44 je Andrei Popescu napisal(a):
For people really concerned with their security in public wifi spots,
perhaps the best I can recommend is: just run off of a live CD. It's
really a great security policy once you get used to it being somewhat
slower; if you can get su
(SSH, SSL, ...), but this is not different than what
> I'm doing anyway when using my home connection (wired or not).
>
> What *other* protection do you think is necessary, something that you
> would not do anyway if the same computer was connected *directly* to the
> internet (
ion do you think is necessary, something that you
would not do anyway if the same computer was connected *directly* to the
internet (no NAT and/or external firewall)?
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d
On Sex, 07 Jan 2011, Andrei Popescu wrote:
If you consider an open wireless to be more dangerous, what additional
protective measures do you suggest?
Enable encryption of the wireless traffic (but not WEP, which is too weak).
SSL is always nice, but there isn't much you can do if the remote si
On Jo, 06 ian 11, 09:12:28, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
[snip]
If you consider an open wireless to be more dangerous, what additional
protective measures do you suggest?
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d
On Qua, 05 Jan 2011, Andrei Popescu wrote:
By "physical access to the network" you mean the internet, right?
Because that's what's past my AP... AFAIK it's just a bit more difficult
to intercept the traffic, that's all.
I'm talking about LAN traffic, not internet traffic. Intercepting
traffic
ns)
2. I want to be able to run unsecured services, if needed, behind the
relative protection of the AP's firewall
Whenever I'm connected to an open AP I just consider my laptop connected
directly[1] to the internet, with all inherent risks.
[1] even though most APs have at least NAT
On Ter, 04 Jan 2011, Andrei Popescu wrote:
The wireless encrypts the traffic only between my laptop and my AP.
Beyond my AP the wireless encryptions does not bring any additional
security.
That's true, but that's exactly the point: if the wireless network is
not encrypted it is trivial to cap
On Lu, 03 ian 11, 23:28:24, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Off topic for Debian but relevant to your question I came across an
> article today in Ars Technica :
> http://arstechnica.com/security/guides/2011/01/stay-safe-at-a-public-wi-fi-hotspot.ars
>
> Might be worth reading if you are in t
On Ma, 04 ian 11, 09:31:52, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> On Ter, 04 Jan 2011, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >Would you care to explain why you find an open wireless to be more
> >dangerous than your regular internet connection?
>
> Because anyone nearby with a laptop can sniff the traffic, unlike
> wit
On Tue 04 Jan 2011 at 09:20:39 -0500, Brad Alexander wrote:
> If you are on a public wifi, you can turn off ssh server (the client
> will still work) and nrpe (the Nagios client). On the other hand, if
> you turn off password auth in ssh, you should be relatively safe
> leaving ssh running. xmpp i
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
wrote:
> On Ter, 04 Jan 2011, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> Because anyone nearby with a laptop can sniff the traffic, unlike with a
>>> regular cabled internet connection or a password protected wireless
>>> network (in which traffic in encrypted)?
>>
>
stuff.
As for needing a firewall, if you run as few network services as
possible, you really don't need a firewall, or at least minimal rules.
For instance, my laptop has the following ports:
PORT STATE SERVICE
22/tcp open ssh
5666/tcp open nrpe
8010/tcp open xmpp
If you are on a p
On the 04/01/2011 12:19, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Lu, 03 ian 11, 12:28:25, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't do my internet banking/shopping over such a network though...
>
> Would you care to explain why you find an open wireless to be more
> dangerous than your regular internet
On Ter, 04 Jan 2011, Brian wrote:
Because anyone nearby with a laptop can sniff the traffic, unlike with a
regular cabled internet connection or a password protected wireless
network (in which traffic in encrypted)?
For internet banking/shopping over https (which would be the norm) it
wouldn't
On Tue 04 Jan 2011 at 09:31:52 -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> Because anyone nearby with a laptop can sniff the traffic, unlike with a
> regular cabled internet connection or a password protected wireless
> network (in which traffic in encrypted)?
For internet banking/shopping over https
er_osvdb=&filter_cve=
--- On Tue, 1/4/11, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> From: Andrei Popescu
> Subject: Re: firewall package for laptop wi-fi client
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 11:19 AM
> On Lu, 03 ian 11, 12:28:25, tv.deb...@googlemail.
On Ter, 04 Jan 2011, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Would you care to explain why you find an open wireless to be more
dangerous than your regular internet connection?
Because anyone nearby with a laptop can sniff the traffic, unlike with
a regular cabled internet connection or a password protected wi
On Lu, 03 ian 11, 12:28:25, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> I wouldn't do my internet banking/shopping over such a network though...
Would you care to explain why you find an open wireless to be more
dangerous than your regular internet connection?
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions a
On the 03/01/2011 05:42, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> I need recommendations for a Debian firewall package to be installed
> on a laptop or notebook which is used for web browsing and web-based
> email in public wi-fi hotspots.
>
> My concern is to prevent infection or compromise of
ections from
the "outside" (Internet). Could be any "server" like ftp, http server
(apache...). Usually you are fine in Debian unless you purposefully
install such a service and open the corresponding ports in your firewall.
>
>
>
>> The major threats are web browser
ogram accepting random connections from arbitrary source
addresses ("the internet"), like a web/FTP/mail server. In order to
check which programs listens on which port, post the output from
'netstat -tulpn' (run as root).
You should be aware that most people in here translate "fi
On 3.1.2011 11:55, Russell L. Harris wrote:
>
>> The major threats are web browser security holes (update often)
>> especially through flash and java plug-ins, and pdf.
>
> Flash and java are in most web pages. Does a firewall not protect
> against these threats
ecially through flash and java plug-ins, and pdf.
>
> Flash and java are in most web pages. Does a firewall not protect
> against these threats? or are browser updates necessary even with a
> firewall?
A firewall is just an additional layer of protection against possible
intruders, but it will
t; especially through flash and java plug-ins, and pdf.
Flash and java are in most web pages. Does a firewall not protect
against these threats? or are browser updates necessary even with a
firewall?
> Hosting windows virus in mails attachments can also be a problem if
> you have win mac
On the 03/01/2011 05:42, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> I need recommendations for a Debian firewall package to be installed
> on a laptop or notebook which is used for web browsing and web-based
> email in public wi-fi hotspots.
>
> My concern is to prevent infection or compromise of
I need recommendations for a Debian firewall package to be installed
on a laptop or notebook which is used for web browsing and web-based
email in public wi-fi hotspots.
My concern is to prevent infection or compromise of the laptop, so
that the laptop may be connected safely to a home or
office
ing for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall software
> that is suitable with your Debian 5 64bit operating system. Wanting to add
> as much security as possible to our server to reduce any problems we may
> encounter. I would like any suggestions as to the best software that ca
On 8/4/2010 12:43 PM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:09:17 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
Correct. It wouldn't be there in the first place and I don't plan on
having my root acoount compromised. Besides, I know my system.
Naive but cute you think that though. You obviously don't to the lat
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 18:43, Brian wrote:
> Besides, I know my system.
Famous last words... ;)
--
() ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto
/\ ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:09:17 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> Because a rootkit can't remain hidden and inject itself back into the
> binary after a "security update" right?
Correct. It wouldn't be there in the first place and I don't plan on
having my root acoount compromised. Besides, I know
On 8/4/2010 9:24 AM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:53:42 +0200, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
chkrootkit - rootkit detector
rkhunter - rootkit, backdoor, sniffer and exploit scanner
If ckkrootkit really did detect worms like Lupper, Lion
and Adore (as opposed to the false positive
On Wed 04 Aug 2010 at 10:53:42 +0200, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> chkrootkit - rootkit detector
> rkhunter - rootkit, backdoor, sniffer and exploit scanner
If ckkrootkit really did detect worms like Lupper, Lion
and Adore (as opposed to the false positives both programs
appear fond of gener
regarding Anti virus and firewall
software that is suitable with your Debian 5 64bit operating system.
Wanting to add as much security as possible to our server to reduce
any problems we may encounter. I would like any suggestions as to the
best software that can be used either paid for or freeware if
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 22:43 +0100, Tingez Unknown wrote:
> Firstly i am very new to Debian so please excuse me for my lack of
> understanding.
Welcome to Debian :)
> I am looking for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall software
> that is suitable with your De
Hi,
As Aaron Toponce said, most viruses target Windows, but if you share a
lot of files it would be nice (for your windows users) to scan them.
Try clamav: http://www.clamav.net/
Debian package clamav i tihnk, and it installs freshclam as well for updates.
As for firewall, i'm happy
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 10:43:05PM +0100, Tingez Unknown wrote:
>I am looking for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall
>software that is suitable with your Debian 5 64bit operating system.
>Wanting to add as much security as possible to our server to r
, sending and receiving
files and all other aspects web site related, fast redirect downloading
system for game server maps, mods etc., ftp, Big brother bot game server
software and game servers of varying games.
I am looking for any suggestions regarding Anti virus and firewall software
that is
Thanks for every ones help. I resolved all issues with errors from my
firewall. Here is a summary
1) My DSL modem/router periodically pings my machine. If I accept then
it queries more about www server, samba server etc. I do not like these
requests as I do not know what the modem does with
On Fri, July 30, 2010 07:35, R. Ramesh wrote:
> My bad, I googled icmp_type 8. It seems harmless and required to be
> implemented. So I am going to accept.
> After filtering out this one, I notice another one coming from my own
> firewall and need to figure out who i
le to tell the kernel
to discard such packets?
my cristal ball is currently somehow foggy, so I can't tell.
maybe you know what firewall frontend you are using?
what to do?
well - to prohibit logging of those packets in the short term a
rule like this may do the job:
iptables -I INPUT
such packets?
my cristal ball is currently somehow foggy, so I can't tell.
maybe you know what firewall frontend you are using?
what to do?
well - to prohibit logging of those packets in the short term a rule
like this may do the job:
iptables -I INPUT -i eth1 -s 192.168.1.1 -p icmp --i
=0 ID=60352 SEQ=0
192.168.1.47 is my firewall connected to the DSL modem/router (which I
think must be 192.168.1.1)
Ramesh
Ramasubramanian Ramesh wrote:
Hi:
My syslog and console window is repeatedly printing the follwing
message from my firewall setup. I cannot figure out which program or
It would have helped if I actually include the message :-) Here it is:
[2709614.616138] IN=eth1 OUT=
MAC=00:16:e6:84:37:c5:00:0f:db:5c:a0:58:08:00 SRC=192.168.1.1
DST=192.168.1.47 LEN=36 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=37027 PROTO=ICMP
TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=60352 SEQ=0
192.168.1.47 is my firewall
Hi:
My syslog and console window is repeatedly printing the follwing
message from my firewall setup. I cannot figure out which program or
service is printing this message. My first preference is to modify the
source behavior. The second choice is to stop printing the message.
I guess I could
'iptables -L' will list all rules so maybe somebody from the list will
notice something.
Tux:/home/lisi# iptables -L
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTP
arget prot opt source destination
Tux:/home/lisi#
> On this site http://pwet.fr/man/linux/administration_systeme/firehol is
> written:
> 'firehol stop' "Stops a running iptables firewall by running
> CW/etc/init.d/iptables stop. This will allow all tra
s -L' will list all rules so maybe somebody from the list will
notice something.
On this site http://pwet.fr/man/linux/administration_systeme/firehol is
written:
'firehol stop' "Stops a running iptables firewall by running
CW/etc/init.d/iptables stop. This will allow all traff
Lisi wrote:
> worse. :-( And I still need to learn about firewalls.
>
> I would value, and be very grateful for, any advice on the best procedure
> to follow - or what FM to read - _before_ I manage to kybosh my entire
> system, rather than after.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisi
google earth required GL an
uminating on it, and think it just possible that I
have found the root of the problem.
I had recently downloaded three firewall applications, Shorewall, Firehol and
Fwbuilder, to see whether, by looking at them and reading their helpfiles, I
could get past my woeful ignorance of firewalls. I had
Hi!
You someone recommend a firewall in Debian that has a GUI and also configurable
bandwidth limitation in both directions?
I'm using Shorewall at the moment, but I want to try something with a GUI.
Torquil
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
On 2010-02-07, Daniel Dalton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the best way to run a firewall script with lots of iptables
> lines in it when a connection is put up? Eg. when I connect to ethernet
> or wifi the script should run. If I'm offline then it shouldn't run. I'm
2010/2/7 Stan Hoeppner
> Daniel Dalton put forth on 2/6/2010 11:22 PM:
>
> > If I'm offline then it shouldn't run.
>
> Why? Does it hurt anything to have the rules active when you're not
> connected?
> I can't see how it would. All the rules do is cause the kernel to eat up
> a
> small amount
Daniel Dalton put forth on 2/6/2010 11:22 PM:
> If I'm offline then it shouldn't run.
Why? Does it hurt anything to have the rules active when you're not connected?
I can't see how it would. All the rules do is cause the kernel to eat up a
small amount of additional memory. Iptables rules are
Hi,
What is the best way to run a firewall script with lots of iptables
lines in it when a connection is put up? Eg. when I connect to ethernet
or wifi the script should run. If I'm offline then it shouldn't run. I'm
using wicd to manage all my wifi connections. Is it possible to
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 07:50:29AM +, hadi motamedi wrote:
> Dear All Can you please do me favor and let me know how can I disable
> my Debian server firewall ? As I know , on the Linux server , I can
There is no firewall by default, so you must have installed something.
Grep throug
Dear All
Can you please do me favor and let me know how can I disable my Debian
server firewall ? As I know , on the Linux server , I can make use of the
"#setup" command to disable my Linux firewall but my Debian server does not
have "setup" command . Please let me know how c
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 09:05 -0300, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote:
> Reading IpCop Installation Manual, you'll see:
> "You will be installing an operating system on the IPCop PC. It is a
> Linux based operating system, but it is not meant to be a
> general-purpose system.".
> Sorry, I was not c
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 16:28 -0300, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I am searching for something like pfsense[1] for Linux to install in a
> production server.
> In other words, a highly manageable firewall solution with a nice web
> interface.
> Funcionalit
2009/9/21 Leandro Quibem Magnabosco :
> Jesús M. Navarro escreveu:
>
> You are aware you are comparing apples to oranges, aren't you? You asked
> for
> a firewall when it seems you are looking for a gateway solution. pfSense,
> as
> you certainly know is not a script
Jesús M. Navarro escreveu:
You are aware you are comparing apples to oranges, aren't you? You asked for
a firewall when it seems you are looking for a gateway solution. pfSense, as
you certainly know is not a script or even a bunch of scripts but a whole
system solution.
Sorry, I don't have lenny
>
> Have you tried lenny?
> Supposing you can only see part of the webpage, have you captured the data
> from your network card to make sure all the data has been discarded?
>
> BTW, backup the old policy rules before you drop them may be a good idea.
>
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Long Wind 写道:
I have a firewall script
It provides NAT and allow clients to visit only 3 sites plus DNS servers
On client machine the 1st site (www.debian.org) can be viewed.
but other two sites have problems
the browser display only title bar
in other words it is displayed partially
Note the
I have a firewall script
It provides NAT and allow clients to visit only 3 sites plus DNS servers
On client machine the 1st site (www.debian.org) can be viewed.
but other two sites have problems
the browser display only title bar
in other words it is displayed partially
Note the other two sites
".
>
> The why is this:
> http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=
>43 I need at least 70% of those features and I don't want to deal with every
> new setup I do.
That's still the what, not the why, but let&
0% of those features and I don't want to deal with
every new setup I do.
Trying to apply the DRY principle
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself) when dealing with
several networks while keeping the same features and homogeneity of the
installs.
arno-iptables-firewall i
Hi, Leandro:
On Friday 18 September 2009 14:05:40 Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote:
> David Christensen escreveu:
> > I'm not sure I understand "install in a production server". Normally, a
> > server is one computer and a firewall/ router is another computer.
&
On 2009-09-18_09:05:40, Leandro Quibem Magnabosco wrote:
> David Christensen escreveu:
>> I'm not sure I understand "install in a production server". Normally, a
>> server is one computer and a firewall/ router is another computer.
>>
>>
>> I
501 - 600 of 2077 matches
Mail list logo
