RE: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2004-01-05 Thread Francois BERGERET
c : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : RE: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet > > > I already had a similar entry in my policy file: > > vpn fw ACCEPT > fwvpn ACCEPT > > to no avail. Are you using IPSec, Francois? > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, > Francois BERGERET

RE: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-29 Thread Ray Olszewski
At 06:20 PM 12/29/2003 +0100, Christopher Harewood wrote: Eureka! Determined to resolve this issue, I attempted to access the weblet over the VPN, and checked to see if any log file was touched. Just one. daemon.log. Which told me that I had failed to place a carriage return after the second ent

RE: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-29 Thread Christopher Harewood
Eureka! Determined to resolve this issue, I attempted to access the weblet over the VPN, and checked to see if any log file was touched. Just one. daemon.log. Which told me that I had failed to place a carriage return after the second entry in hosts.allow for my ipsec'd subnet. One carria

RE: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-26 Thread Christopher Harewood
x27;origine- > > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de > > Christopher > > Harewood > > Envoye : lundi 15 decembre 2003 07:10 > > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Objet : Re: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet > > > > > > Th

RE: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-15 Thread Francois BERGERET
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de > Christopher > Harewood > Envoye : lundi 15 decembre 2003 07:10 > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet > > > The 192.168.3.0 subnet is my IPSec vpn. Hence, in > /etc

Re: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-14 Thread Christopher Harewood
The 192.168.3.0 subnet is my IPSec vpn. Hence, in /etc/shorewall/rules: ACCEPT loc fw tcp 80 ACCEPT vpn fw tcp 80 No weblet over the vpn, and no hits in the firewall log, so I surmise that it's not a Shorewall issue. But I've been wrong before. -

Re: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-14 Thread Victor McAllister
Christopher Harewood wrote: Tried both of these before posting. 192.168.1.0 is my wired subnet, 192.68.3.0 is my wireless subnet. hosts.allow: ALL: 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 ALL: 192.168.3.0/255.255.255.0 sh-httpd.conf (pertinent parts) # Who are we - used for CGI scripts SERVER_NAME=ice.ra

Re: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-14 Thread Christopher Harewood
Tried both of these before posting. 192.168.1.0 is my wired subnet, 192.68.3.0 is my wireless subnet. hosts.allow: ALL: 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 ALL: 192.168.3.0/255.255.255.0 sh-httpd.conf (pertinent parts) # Who are we - used for CGI scripts SERVER_NAME=ice.rawdata.lab SERVER_ADDR=192.168

Re: [leaf-user] IPSec WiFi vs. weblet

2003-12-13 Thread Lynn Avants
On Saturday 13 December 2003 12:25 am, Christopher Harewood wrote: > I have finally (through the alignment of planets, presumably) set up IPSec > on the wifi connection to my Bering box. All works well (browse Samba > shares with no problems, net access, etc. The only thing that fails to > load o