On 2/5/2012 8:41 AM, Michael Picher wrote:
Gerald,
Your gz file doesn't seem to be in the same place...
I see I had posted a couple of links:
http://www.drouillard.biz/fail2ban.tar.gz
or
http://www.drouillard.biz/sipx_fail2ban.tar.gz
They both will work now.
Thanks,
Mike
On Sun, Feb 5, 2
Thanks, I commented. It would be good to have a way for a firewall to
use a sipx hosted blacklist to help alleviate future attacks from the
same address at the edge (i think).
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM, George Niculae wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Michael Picher wrote:
>>
>> N
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Michael Picher wrote:
> Not sure if there is a tracker on it. And no, but that would be a nice
> improvement request.
>
>
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9447 is the call rate limit tracker
--
George
--
Come meet us at CoLab @ CSU in March (5th & 6
for users of sipXecs software
> *Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
>
> ** **
>
> it's call pfblocker... add the package in the first menu on the left...**
> **
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM, S.K.- G wrote:
>
> Nice!!
>
&g
gt;
> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of S.K.- G
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:44 AM
>
>
> To: 'Discussion list for users of sipXecs software'
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of S.K.- G
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:44 AM
To: 'Discussion list for users of sipXecs software'
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
OK, I think I will try to integrate fail2ban with SIPX .. Any "How to"
recommendations?
05, 2012 9:13 AM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
it's call pfblocker... add the package in the first menu on the left...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM, S.K.- G wrote:
Nice!!
Welcome me to the SIP Vicious too :-(.M
nday, February 05, 2012 8:42 AM
> *To:* sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
>
> ** **
>
> Keith,
>
>
> These other solutions that are being recommended are great, but I actually
> found a very simple way t
.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Robert B
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 8:42 AM
To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
Keith,
These other solutions that are being recommended are great, but I actually
foun
... and coming in 4.6... just pulled this from the test server in the
lab...
[image: image.png]
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Robert B wrote:
> Keith,
>
> These other solutions that are being recommended are great, but I actually
> found a very simple way that works "well enough" for me *
Keith,
These other solutions that are being recommended are great, but I
actually found a very simple way that works "well enough" for me *so far*...
Change your iptable rule that allows port 5060 to something like the
following:
-A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -m string -m hashlimit --dport 5060 -j
Gerald,
Your gz file doesn't seem to be in the same place...
Thanks,
Mike
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Gerald Drouillard
wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 12:20 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> >
> > Fail2ban requires the firewall use iptables I think.
> >
> >
> You can and should run it on the sipx server.
On 2/5/2012 12:20 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
>
> Fail2ban requires the firewall use iptables I think.
>
>
You can and should run it on the sipx server.
--
Regards
--
Gerald Drouillard
Technology Architect
Drouillard& Associates, Inc.
http://www.Drouillard.biz
_
On 2/4/2012 11:41 PM, Gerardo Barajas wrote:
> Hi members of the list.
> ¿Is Fail2ban useful in this situation??
Yes
Search the list and you will see how.
--
Regards
--
Gerald Drouillard
Technology Architect
Drouillard& Associates, Inc.
http://www.Drouillard.
-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Gerardo Barajas
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:42 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
Hi members of the list.
¿Is
Of Tony
> Graziano
> > Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 3:53 PM
> > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Keith Laidlaw
> > wrote:
> >> I
oun...@list.sipfoundry.org
> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 3:53 PM
> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at
ginal Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 3:53 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Sip Vicious and Remote Workers
On Sat, Feb 4,
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Keith Laidlaw wrote:
> I have a working, stable sipX system (4.4.0 from ISO) with various
> same-subnet phones and sipxbridge to an ITSP (Voip.ms). The entire system
> is behind a port restricted NAT. All is well.
>
>
>
> Recently I tried to add remote workers to
I have a working, stable sipX system (4.4.0 from ISO) with various
same-subnet phones and sipxbridge to an ITSP (Voip.ms). The entire system
is behind a port restricted NAT. All is well.
Recently I tried to add remote workers to the mix, very carefully. The
first - and only - thing I did was
20 matches
Mail list logo
