Homer
Homer Parker wrote the following at 18:04 29.01.2003:
What would be the best way to handle Symantec's LiveUpdate through a
Bering 1.0 firewall? Tom says using domain names is not a goot thing, and
I understand the reasoning behind that. liveupdate.symantecliveupdate.com
resolves to
--On Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:40 PM +0100 Erich Titl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AFAIK LiveUpdate is initiated from the station that requests it, so
normally you don't need to set up anything as this is related traffic.
Correct -- I have LiveUpdate running here on two systems without a
why isn't that stopped by the firewall?
-Original Message-
From: Tom Eastep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Symantec
--On Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:40 PM +0100 Erich Titl
<[EMAIL P
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 05:08 pm, you wrote:
> why isn't that stopped by the firewall?
Because your LAN machine(s) initate the connection.
--
~Lynn Avants
Linux Embedded Firewall Project developer
http://leaf.sourceforge.net
---
This SF.N
?
-Original Message-
From: Tom Eastep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Symantec
--On Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:40 PM +0100 Erich Titl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AFAIK LiveUpdate is i
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:56:01 -0800 Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
>
>
> --On Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:40 PM +0100 Erich Titl
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAIK LiveUpdate is initiated from the station that requests it, so
> > normally you don't need to set up anything
Homer
At 23:59 29.01.2003 -0600, you wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:56:01 -0800 Tom Eastep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
>
>
> --On Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:40 PM +0100 Erich Titl
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAIK LiveUpdate is initiated from the station that requests it, so
> >
-Original Message-
From: Erich Titl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Symantec
Homer
At 23:59 29.01.2003 -0600, you wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:56:01 -0800 Tom Eastep <[EMAI
is there a way to block this with the firewall..
-Original Message-
From: Lynn Avants [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Symantec
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 05:08 pm, you wrote:
> why isn't that
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:09:24 +0100 Erich Titl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
> > Ok... I guess I missed the point that the boxes don't have net
> >
> > access..
> >There are 7 systems behind the Bering box, and only 2 have net
> >access...
>
> LiveUpdate without net access. It's k
Homer,
Jumping in kinda late here...apologies if I am missing the boat...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:29:21 CST Homer Parker wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:09:24 +0100 Erich Titl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>
> > > Ok... I guess I missed the point that the boxes don't have net
> > >
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:23:48 -0500 "Brad Fritz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
>
> Homer,
>
> Jumping in kinda late here...apologies if I am missing the boat...
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:29:21 CST Homer Parker wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:09:24 +0100 Erich Titl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > w
Also apologize for jumping in late.
Brad's comment below is the right general response for giving a host
limited access to the Internet, allowing it only to use a single service,
but it assumes that (a) "just the LiveUpdate port(s)" has a useful
definition and (b) "the LiveUpdate servers" is a
>>
>>> LiveUpdate without net access. It's kind of contradictive.
>>
>
> They are blocked at the firewall at the managements request...
> But, they want to keep the virus defs on those >>machines current,
> so I'm trying to find a way to handle that...
Well, you can try anothe
hi,
while the docs recommend against using dns names the
ability is there with 1.3.9 and later, if i'm not
mistaken.
http://www.shorewall.net/configuration_file_basics.htm#dnsnames
i'd say if it works for you use it, at least try it on
a test box if possible.
brett
--- Homer Parker <[EMAIL PR
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:30:40 PST Ray wrote:
> Brad's comment below is the right general response for giving a host
> limited access to the Internet, allowing it only to use a single service,
> but it assumes that (a) "just the LiveUpdate port(s)" has a useful
> definition and (b) "the LiveUpda
Brad Fritz wrote:
Homer,
Or use squid if the traffic is port 80.
Matt
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
17 matches
Mail list logo