On 19 August 2010 23:29, Ron Rader wrote:
> So these rouser statements allow specification of a MINIMUM security
> level, which defaults to "auth."
Correct.
You need a line such as
rouser xxxuser noauth
to allow noAuthNoPriv requests.
> No problem. I'll leave as-is and won't bother cha
Dave:
> Please check the man page description of the "rouser" directive.
Let's see:
"By default, this [rouser] will provide access to the full OID
tree for authenticated (including encrypted) SNMPv3 requests,
using the default context. An alternative minimum security
level can
On 19 August 2010 19:14, Ron Rader wrote:
> createUser auser
> rouser auser
> Hmmm... snmpwalk -v 3 using either "auser" or "puser" with the
> corresponding credentials works, but using "noauser" bombs through
> authorization Error (access denied to that object).
Please check the man page desc
Dave:
> What access control settings are you using?
trapcommunity public
rocommunity "public"
trap2sink udp6:[2003:a8::129]:162
trap2sink 192.168.1.129
createUser noauser
rouser noauser
trapsess -v 3 -u noauser -l noAuthNoPriv udp6:[2003:a8::129]:162
createUser auser
rouser auser
trapsess -v 3 -u
On 19 August 2010 17:39, Ron Rader wrote:
> While I'm on the subject of weird MIB walk responses... I can't seem
> to get V3 access using noAuthNoPriv users. This results in snmpwalk
> authorizationErrors and authenticationFailure traps. Is this another
> RTFM moment, like the previous "rocommu
While I'm on the subject of weird MIB walk responses... I can't seem
to get V3 access using noAuthNoPriv users. This results in snmpwalk
authorizationErrors and authenticationFailure traps. Is this another
RTFM moment, like the previous "rocommunity6" configuration item?
Thanks,
Ron
Th
