On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:09 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 16 November 2006 20:29, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > Can anyone tell me why I have about a hundred of these
> >
> > Nov 16 08:00:03 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
> > logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= rhost=22
On Thursday 16 November 2006 20:29, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why I have about a hundred of these
>
> Nov 16 08:00:03 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
> logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= rhost=222.135.146.45
> Nov 16 08:00:06 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authent
Can anyone tell me why I have about a hundred of these
Nov 16 08:00:03 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= rhost=222.135.146.45
Nov 16 08:00:06 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= rhost=222.135.146
On Friday 06 October 2006 08:05, Etaoin Shrdlu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
> On Friday 6 October 2006 14:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > Anycast is virtually unused anywhere. I'd imagine it could be used in
>
On Friday 6 October 2006 14:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> Anycast is virtually unused anywhere. I'd imagine it could be used in
> some crazy layer 3 clustering solution, but I've never actually seen
> it used.
Actually, ipv6 uses anycasts extensively.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing lis
On Friday 06 October 2006 03:13, Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:53:55 -0500 "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So it would be sufficient
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:53:55 -0500 "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 October 2006 14:44, Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
> > [...]
> > Note that the
On Thursday 05 October 2006 14:44, Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
> Concerning the IPs you've mentioned, that looks like
> 70.234.122.249 = 01000110.11101010.0010.1001
> 70.234.122.250 = 01000
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:59:06 -0500
Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if I wanted 70.234.122.249, 70.234.122.250, and 70.234.122.251 as
> the network. What would the syntax for those three be? I've never been
> able to figure out what the 127.0.0.1/8 syntax means...
That s
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 19:33 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:45:57 -0500
> Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> > > Yep. That's how it should be according to your iptables dump. I never
> >
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:45:57 -0500
Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> > Yep. That's how it should be according to your iptables dump. I never
> > fighted with ipkungfu, but I think the LOCAL_NET configuration opens
> > t
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:07:49 -0500 Michael Sullivan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ACCEPT all -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywherestate NEW
> > [...]
> >
> > And I can still detect all those ports open from n
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:07:49 -0500 Michael Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ACCEPT all -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywherestate NEW
> [...]
>
> And I can still detect all those ports open from nmap on another
> machine.
Yep. That's how it should be according to your ipta
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:57 -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
> Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > I'm having a problem with ipkungfu on one of my boxes. According to the
> > log files, it's running, but it doesn't seem to be firewall-ing. It's
> > not working on 192.168.1.2. Here's nmap output from 192.168.1.3
Michael Sullivan wrote:
I'm having a problem with ipkungfu on one of my boxes. According to the
log files, it's running, but it doesn't seem to be firewall-ing. It's
not working on 192.168.1.2. Here's nmap output from 192.168.1.3:
camille ~ # nmap -sT -PT 192.168.1.2
Starting Nmap 4.01 ( htt
I'm having a problem with ipkungfu on one of my boxes. According to the
log files, it's running, but it doesn't seem to be firewall-ing. It's
not working on 192.168.1.2. Here's nmap output from 192.168.1.3:
camille ~ # nmap -sT -PT 192.168.1.2
Starting Nmap 4.01 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:30 -0500, Andrew Frink wrote:>>> On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed
> the> instructions in the README file. W
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:30 -0500, Andrew Frink wrote:
>
>
> On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed
> the
> instructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it
> gave me a
>
Michael Sullivan schreef:
> I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed the
> instructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it gave me
> a string of errors, that I'm not sure how to fix:
>
> bullet ipkungfu # ipkungfu Checking configuration... FATAL: Module
> ip_t
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed theinstructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it gave me astring of errors, that I'm not sure how to fix:bullet ipkungfu # ipkungfu
Checking configuration...FATAL: M
I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed the
instructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it gave me a
string of errors, that I'm not sure how to fix:
bullet ipkungfu # ipkungfu
Checking configuration...
FATAL: Module ip_tables not found.
iptables v1.3.4: can't i
21 matches
Mail list logo
