Henggi writes:
> Oh wow… that’s interesting. I had no idea about „nft“ (I just knew
> „iptables-nft“) which seem to be very different.
> I think I have dig down where those „nft" rules are coming from while
> iptables-nft is completely empty. Thanks, great clue!
Typically you'd have a
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 17:36, Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
Hi Arno,
>
> Am 24.10.2023 um 16:19 schrieb Henggi:
> ...
>> As I mentioned in my 1st email, I think (afaik) that no other netfitler
>> module/service is running.
>
> My anecdote was intended to illustrate that beliefs are not
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 16:33, Max Nikulin wrote:
>
> On 24/10/2023 19:04, Henggi wrote:
>> - iptables on server are cleared/open (firewalld or other firewall
>> frameworks are not used/installed).
>
> Nowadays nft or iptables is not the only option to drop packets. Another one
> is eBPF used
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 17:22, Charles Curley
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:30:14 +0200
> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
>> Recently I encountered something similar, and my usual test for local
>> firewall being active,
>>
>> iptables -L -n
>>
>> came back with policies "accept" all over the
Hello,
Am 24.10.2023 um 16:19 schrieb Henggi:
...
As I mentioned in my 1st email, I think (afaik) that no other netfitler
module/service is running.
My anecdote was intended to illustrate that beliefs are not really good
tools to diagnose problems ;-)
root@server:~# systemctl status
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:30:14 +0200
Arno Lehmann wrote:
> Recently I encountered something similar, and my usual test for local
> firewall being active,
>
> iptables -L -n
>
> came back with policies "accept" all over the place, and no
> particular rules.
>
> Took me a while to understand
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 15:30, Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
> Hi Henggi, all,
Hi Arno, thanks for your reply!
>
> Am 24.10.2023 um 14:04 schrieb Henggi:
>> Hi list,
>> Completely stuck here, any clue appreciated!
>> Trying to bring up XRDP service on Debian 11-bullsyeye (arm64, incl.
>> backports,
On 24/10/2023 19:04, Henggi wrote:
- iptables on server are cleared/open (firewalld or other firewall
frameworks are not used/installed).
Nowadays nft or iptables is not the only option to drop packets. Another
one is eBPF used e.g. by systemd.
I have the following link in my notes, but I
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 15:14, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Henggi wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Oct 2023, at 14:46, Dan Ritter wrote:
>>>
>> - when using „port=tcp://:3389“ in xrdp.ini:
>> root@server:~# ss -tlnp | grep 3389
>> LISTEN 0 2 0.0.0.0:3389 0.0.0.0:*
>>
Hi Henggi, all,
Am 24.10.2023 um 14:04 schrieb Henggi:
Hi list,
Completely stuck here, any clue appreciated!
Trying to bring up XRDP service on Debian 11-bullsyeye (arm64, incl. backports,
fully up-to-date) which is only listening on „lo“ interface (not eth0) even
netstat indicates
Henggi wrote:
>
> > On 24 Oct 2023, at 14:46, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> - when using „port=tcp://:3389“ in xrdp.ini:
> root@server:~# ss -tlnp | grep 3389
> LISTEN 0 2 0.0.0.0:3389 0.0.0.0:*
> users:(("xrdp",pid=96436,fd=11))
>
> - when using using „port=3389“ in
> On 24 Oct 2023, at 14:46, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Henggi wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> Completely stuck here, any clue appreciated!
>>
>> — by default xrdp.ini listening config is set to "port=3389“ (which is
>> expected to listen on ipv4 && ipv6 in parallel as I understand). However
>> using
Henggi wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> Completely stuck here, any clue appreciated!
>
> — by default xrdp.ini listening config is set to "port=3389“ (which is
> expected to listen on ipv4 && ipv6 in parallel as I understand). However
> using that seems only to listen on tcp4 according to „netstat“
> —
Hi list,
Completely stuck here, any clue appreciated!
Trying to bring up XRDP service on Debian 11-bullsyeye (arm64, incl. backports,
fully up-to-date) which is only listening on „lo“ interface (not eth0) even
netstat indicates otherwise:
-> incoming tcp syn/ack on localhost interfact (lo)
14 matches
Mail list logo
