You have won!!!
password: 11773
Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt
Description: plain/text
You have won!!!
password: 11773
Norton AntiVirus Deleted1.txt
Description: plain/text
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:39:02AM -0800, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Petro writes:
> >On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:40:06AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> After reading a
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:39:02AM -0800, Ted Cabeen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Petro writes:
> >On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:40:06AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> After reading
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:21:15PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Ultimately, I want input & forward to be drop-by-default. However, the
> `block' chain is meant to be good for both input & forward scenarios; it
> has rules for stateful filtering and `open' things, then a drop & log. If I
> put in a ru
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:55:07PM +1000, mdevin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:22:44PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> > Plato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter
> > > > > w
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:54:31PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Guido Hennecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Sorry, I was transposing my thoughts into ipchains rules. Actually my
> > > firewall is iptables based. In iptables, packets that are being
> > > masqueraded traverse only the FORWARD
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:22:44PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Plato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter
> > > > withecho 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/log_martians
> > > > for logging/fun purposes.
> > >
> > > rp_filter will not help with
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:31:09AM +0200, Berend De Schouwer wrote:
> On Mon, 2001-12-10 at 08:19, mdevin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> > > With ipchains you can make the following:
> > >
> > > ipchains -A in
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:21:15PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Ultimately, I want input & forward to be drop-by-default. However, the
> `block' chain is meant to be good for both input & forward scenarios; it
> has rules for stateful filtering and `open' things, then a drop & log. If I
> put in a r
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:55:07PM +1000, mdevin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:22:44PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> > Plato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter
> > > > > w
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:54:31PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Guido Hennecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Sorry, I was transposing my thoughts into ipchains rules. Actually my
> > > firewall is iptables based. In iptables, packets that are being
> > > masqueraded traverse only the FORWAR
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:22:44PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Plato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter
> > > > withecho 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/log_martians
> > > > for logging/fun purposes.
> > >
> > > rp_filter will not help wit
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:31:09AM +0200, Berend De Schouwer wrote:
> On Mon, 2001-12-10 at 08:19, mdevin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> > > With ipchains you can make the following:
> > >
> > > ipchains -A in
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> With ipchains you can make the following:
>
> ipchains -A input -i ! eth1 -d 192.168.0.1 -j DENY
What this says is: all packets with destination 192.168.0.1 must not
have come from eth1 or they will be denied.
Why do you choose to
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:52:51PM +1000, mdevin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> > I try to explain again:
> >
> > You have a Linux box with "eth0" and "eth1". "eth0" is the Internet
> > i
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> With ipchains you can make the following:
>
> ipchains -A input -i ! eth1 -d 192.168.0.1 -j DENY
What this says is: all packets with destination 192.168.0.1 must not
have come from eth1 or they will be denied.
Why do you choose t
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> I try to explain again:
>
> You have a Linux box with "eth0" and "eth1". "eth0" is the Internet
> interface, "eth1" is the interface to the LAN.
>
> IP addresses: eth0 - 123.123.123.123
> eth1 - 192.168.0.1
>
> You w
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:52:51PM +1000, mdevin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> > I try to explain again:
> >
> > You have a Linux box with "eth0" and "eth1". "eth0" is the Internet
> > i
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:50:19AM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> I try to explain again:
>
> You have a Linux box with "eth0" and "eth1". "eth0" is the Internet
> interface, "eth1" is the interface to the LAN.
>
> IP addresses: eth0 - 123.123.123.123
> eth1 - 192.168.0.1
>
> You
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 07:45:52PM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> Please dont answer to the list _and_ to me. Thank you.
>
> At 09.12.2001, Tim Haynes wrote:
> > "Phillip Hofmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [snip]
> > > > If an attacker in the same network sets a route like that:
> >
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 04:30:35AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 12:06:26AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I do want sshd to listen on all (0.0.0.0) but I would like to find a way
> > to make it only accept connection attempts for a certain user from the
> > internet bu
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 07:45:52PM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> Please dont answer to the list _and_ to me. Thank you.
>
> At 09.12.2001, Tim Haynes wrote:
> > "Phillip Hofmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [snip]
> > > > If an attacker in the same network sets a route like that:
>
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 04:30:35AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 12:06:26AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I do want sshd to listen on all (0.0.0.0) but I would like to find a way
> > to make it only accept connection attempts for a certain user from the
> > internet b
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:57:51PM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> At 08.12.2001, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > grr...forgot to reply to list...
>
> It was not necessary because...
>
> > From: Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > ORyou could use IPCHAINS or IPTABLES to REJECT (or DENY)
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:57:51PM +0100, Guido Hennecke wrote:
> At 08.12.2001, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> > grr...forgot to reply to list...
>
> It was not necessary because...
>
> > From: Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > ORyou could use IPCHAINS or IPTABLES to REJECT (or DENY
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:25:16PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 07:40:06PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> > So, what I can figure out is that it seems that I have only
> > the following daemons listening: postfix, sshd, cupsd,
> > XF86_SVGA, portmap.
> >
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:25:16PM +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 07:40:06PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> > So, what I can figure out is that it seems that I have only
> > the following daemons listening: postfix, sshd, cupsd,
> > XF86_SVGA, portmap.
> >
After reading a previous thread about stopping services from listening
on certains ports, I decided to investigate things a little further for
my system.
So, what I can figure out is that it seems that I have only the
following daemons listening: postfix, sshd, cupsd, XF86_SVGA, portmap.
I have o
After reading a previous thread about stopping services from listening
on certains ports, I decided to investigate things a little further for
my system.
So, what I can figure out is that it seems that I have only the
following daemons listening: postfix, sshd, cupsd, XF86_SVGA, portmap.
I have
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:35:29AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:52:24PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > What is the security link?
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib
>
> note that says stable. there is no security l
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates
> > > all
> > > the time, takes
> > > to much time to keep track
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 07:11:00PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Stefan Srdic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, as you can guess I am using netfilter for firewalling.
> >
> > How can I pipe all logs from Netfilter into a single logfile?
> >
> > Lets say I wanted all log messages from netfil
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:35:29AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:52:24PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > What is the security link?
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stable/updates main contrib
>
> note that says stable. there is no security
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:21:44PM +0200, Joris Mocka wrote:
> Ethan Benson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 11:01:10AM +0200, Johan Segernäs wrote:
> > > And no, i wouldn't use woody on a firewall, it's to many packet-updates all
> > > the time, takes
> > > to much time to keep track of ev
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 07:11:00PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Stefan Srdic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, as you can guess I am using netfilter for firewalling.
> >
> > How can I pipe all logs from Netfilter into a single logfile?
> >
> > Lets say I wanted all log messages from netfi
36 matches
Mail list logo