On May 24, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
That's very interesting and makes sense. I do not have the check-
state in there, and just specify each port that is open, I'm
guessing I did not run into this problem with anything else, as dns
is a very stateful type of protocol?
DNS
On 24-May-05, at 2:12 PM, Charles Swiger wrote:
On May 24, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
I hate to ask something silly, but you do have a check-state rule
somewhere, right?
it's not silly..., what's silly is now I'm asking how would I
check :) or what would the rule look l
On May 24, 2005, at 2:25 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
I hate to ask something silly, but you do have a check-state rule
somewhere, right?
it's not silly..., what's silly is now I'm asking how would I
check :) or what would the rule look like.
You've have an "ipfw add check-state" rule som
On 24-May-05, at 12:09 PM, Charles Swiger wrote:
On May 24, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
Thank you for your suggestions... I think it helped me solve the
problem. It seems I needed to add more rules... although they
seem redundant to me, but they have clearly made an improv
On May 24, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
Thank you for your suggestions... I think it helped me solve the
problem. It seems I needed to add more rules... although they seem
redundant to me, but they have clearly made an improvement and I'm
no longer getting those dns related e
Hi Chuck,
Thank you for your suggestions... I think it helped me solve the
problem. It seems I needed to add more rules... although they seem
redundant to me, but they have clearly made an improvement and I'm no
longer getting those dns related errors in ipfw.log and in /var/log/
messages
Stephane Raimbault wrote:
Does anyone have any further thoughts on this, or could maybe point me
in a direction that could help me solve the problem?
Take a look at "ipfw -a l", and see which rules are being matched. The output
from that command is critical for understanding what the firewall i
Does anyone have any further thoughts on this, or could maybe point
me in a direction that could help me solve the problem?
Thanks,
Stephane
On 18-May-05, at 11:08 AM, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
On 18-May-05, at 11:03 AM, Jose Hidalgo wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:51 -0600, Stephane Raimbault
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:51 -0600, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
> I also noticed these errors in my ipfw.log file:
>
> May 18 06:40:03 enertia1 /kernel: ipfw: 65000 Deny UDP
> 63.252.160.219:53 204.9.110.134:3371 in via vlan1
> May 18 06:40:03 enertia1 /kernel: ipfw: 65000 Deny UDP
> 63.252.160.
On 18-May-05, at 11:03 AM, Jose Hidalgo wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:51 -0600, Stephane Raimbault wrote:
I also noticed these errors in my ipfw.log file:
May 18 06:40:03 enertia1 /kernel: ipfw: 65000 Deny UDP
63.252.160.219:53 204.9.110.134:3371 in via vlan1
May 18 06:40:03 enertia1 /kernel: ip
Hi,
I've been noticing lots of errors in my /var/log/messages reporting
named errors:
May 18 06:45:14 enertia1 named[8320]: client 204.9.110.133#1829:
error sending response: permission denied
May 18 06:45:14 enertia1 named[8320]: client 204.9.110.133#1993:
error sending response: permission
11 matches
Mail list logo
