Mark
At 18:14 16.03.2004 +1100, Mark Holmes wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Ok, looks like I have an answer after some playing with /linuxrc.
>
>After turning on VERBOSE to see what is happening, this is where in the
>script appears to fail:
>
># Query /proc/cmdline line for a 'boot' option.
># This will solve
On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 18:16, Tony wrote:
> I have a few questions regarding this...
>
> Now, if I have this figured correctly, the bridge is transparent to your
> ISP, so you would need another host behind the bridge to have an
> address, correct? The use I have in mind would be statically assi
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 09:27 am, Richard Doyle wrote:
>
> A bridge doesn't have to have an IP, though perhaps you can't use
> Shorewall without one.
>
The experimental Shorewall bridge code has now been successfully tested with a
bridge that doesn't have an IP address.
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep
Hi,
After some recent maintenance work on our Bering 1.2 box, shorewall.log
has begun showing strange connection attempts from local adresses
in the network range 10.1.1.x to our ISP allocated IP address.
Any ideas what can be the cause of this? None of the internal hosts
use this address range,
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 11:40 am, debw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After some recent maintenance work on our Bering 1.2 box, shorewall.log
> has begun showing strange connection attempts from local adresses
> in the network range 10.1.1.x to our ISP allocated IP address.
Those are not connection attempts --
At 07:40 PM 3/16/2004 +, debw wrote:
Hi,
After some recent maintenance work on our Bering 1.2 box, shorewall.log
has begun showing strange connection attempts from local adresses
in the network range 10.1.1.x to our ISP allocated IP address.
What do you call these "attempts from local adresses
I'd like to implement a VPN at work (seems to be the in thing to do); I don't
really so much want encryption (but I'll take it :-) as better user
authentication (right now, I use TCP Wrappers and firewall rules to keep out
undesireables; this is becoming more and more unworkable as folks wish to
co
Thank you for your responses Tom & Ray.
I can now see that the connections from rfc1918 address 10.1.1.d
is coming into ppp0 - yes.
You both mention that it might be a user on our LAN who is being
rejected from initiating connections to a remote port 80. This may
be the cause, so consider this d
Dear listeners,
using happily shorewall & accounting, I would like to count the amounts
of traffic.
Unfortunately iptables prints out that numbers in a form like
30K or 30M
instead of 3 and 3000.
man iptables: That can be switched by using the parameter "-x"
OK.
But where I have to set tha
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 03:02 pm, debw wrote:
>
> Ray's theory of a "leaky router" could be the cause for the 10.b.c.d
> packets, but does rfc1918 filtering on ISP internet routers
> not make it impossible for packets with 10.b.c.d , 192.b.c.d , etc
> source addresses to reach our firewall?
No -
I've been looking over the LEAF distros for a candidate to build a set
of border firewall/routers. They are to replace existing devices built
with PC hardware and commercial DOS-based firewall software.
I have several questions. Here are a few to start:
1. Given the details below, which distro wo
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 03:06 pm, Henning Jebsen wrote:
> But where I have to set that in shorewall ? I already had some looks into
> the shorewall-scripts but could not find a place to append that
You can't. If you need the "-x" option, you will have to run iptables
directly.
e.g.,
iptables
Hi folks. Easy question for you!
I am running Bering uClib latest version with HSorewall 1.4.9 and I
would like to reduce the huge number of entries in my logs that seem
repetitive and contain no new information. It makes them hard to read.
I would like to be able to parse my logs and modify my
As of today a new package directory for LEAF Bering-uClibc packages called
"testing" is available.
Packages in this directory could be build and contributed by someone outside
the Bering-uClibc team, or build for users by request and untested due to
lack of hardware etc.., and will be provided
I am a long time Eigerstein/Bering user who has been happily using a
three-interface Bering box for some time.
I have a friend also using Bering, and he told me he could not get
the ne.o module to work with his box when he attempted to migrate to
the latest Bering uclib. So I thought I'd try t
Ah so, the solution is to load the crc32 module before the 8390
module. This is probably a FAQ that I missed, but if not, this would
be a good thing to add to the installation docs since it's a
difference from Bering,
> I am a long time Eigerstein/Bering user who has been happily using a
> thr
16 matches
Mail list logo
