On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:13:11 -0800
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Tudod Ki wrote:
...
> > - Can anyone sniff the traffic of computer "B"? e.g.: B computer is at a
> > - server farm [others in the farm can see the traffic?] - I think yes, but
> > - I'm not sure :O
>
> Yes, that's possible. However,
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:13:11 -0800
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
...
> I believe when you use SOCKS, your browser stops doing DNS resolution and
> just hands the hostnames directly to the SOCKS server. So all they would be
> able to sniff is your encrypted SSH session, which they (hopefully) can't
> d
Tudod Ki wrote:
> but what's with cam attack?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_Table#Attacks
>
> they could attack a switch, and it will act as a hub? and then they can
> set promiscuous mode on their cards and sniff
Hmm. I didn't know about that one! I suppose it's possible. Of course, i
about ssh tunneling
To: "Tudod Ki"
Cc: "Debian User"
Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 10:13 PM
Tudod Ki wrote:
> if I:
>
> ssh -fND localhost:6000 someb...@192.168.56.5 -p PORTNUMBER
>
> from computer "A" to computer "B" [B = 192.168.56.5
Tudod Ki wrote:
> if I:
>
> ssh -fND localhost:6000 someb...@192.168.56.5 -p PORTNUMBER
>
> from computer "A" to computer "B" [B = 192.168.56.5] then I can set the SOCKS
> proxy for e.g.: Firefox to use "localhost:6000" on computer "A". Ok. I can
> surf the web through "B".
>
> But:
> - Can
if I:
ssh -fND localhost:6000 someb...@192.168.56.5 -p PORTNUMBER
from computer "A" to computer "B" [B = 192.168.56.5] then I can set the SOCKS
proxy for e.g.: Firefox to use "localhost:6000" on computer "A". Ok. I can surf
the web through "B".
But:
- Can anyone sniff the traffic of "A"? [e.g.
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 21:19 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
> Alex Malinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You could just use an SSH tunnel FROM port 25 on localhost TO port 25
> > on the smarthost. For example:
> >
> > ssh -L25:localhost:25 -N your.smarthost.org
> >
> > That way anything that
Alex Malinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could just use an SSH tunnel FROM port 25 on localhost TO port 25
> on the smarthost. For example:
>
> ssh -L25:localhost:25 -N your.smarthost.org
>
> That way anything that goes out on port 25 on your local system will
> come in on port 25 of the
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 20:03 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
> Does anyone have a recipe for setting up an SSH tunnel to a smarthost
> with exim4 on Debian.
>
> Either I'm for a translation of this to exim4:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg04292.html
>
> I could also go with a varia
Does anyone have a recipe for setting up an SSH tunnel to a smarthost
with exim4 on Debian.
Either I'm for a translation of this to exim4:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg04292.html
I could also go with a variant of what I'm temporarily using now. I've
set up an SSH tunnel to the M
Quoting P. Kallakuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Joyce, Matthew wrote:
> >>i am not able to connect to a vnc-server thats running behind the
> >>firewall. i know that the vncserver is running because i can open
> >>vncviewers from other clients behind the firewall. but when i
> >>ssh to the
> >>gate
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:37:55PM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
> the latin word
> can be translated as "slime", "poison", or as a metaphor for "slaver
> / foam / venom" (compare Vergilius: destillat ab inguine virus)
Yeurgh!
> Thanks to Mr. Sch??ller and Ms. Altenburg for six years of boring Lati
CTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2003 3:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: virus (was: ssh tunneling)
>
>
> On Tuesday 26 August 2003 03:40, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> >> ..no rule
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:40:32AM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
| * P. Kallakuri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030826 11:06]:
| > by default ICMP traffic is disabled and when i setup a firewall in our
| > research lab about 3 years back, thats how i left it. our research
| > machines were open on the intern
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
| On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:44:32 -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote :
[...]
| > ICMP is extremely useful and is, in fact, required for
| > correct operation of TCP and IP. Do not block ICMP.
|
| ..no rule witout exeption: these 2 minute
* P. Kallakuri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030826 11:06]:
> by default ICMP traffic is disabled and when i setup a firewall in our
> research lab about 3 years back, thats how i left it. our research
> machines were open on the internet when we got a series of nasty
> infiltration attempts. i could not
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 03:40, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> ..no rule witout exeption: these 2 minutes _are_ useful in tarpits,
>> to help slow vira propagation:
>
> That's a new plural of "virus" to me ...
>
> ["viri" and "virii" are b
Joyce, Matthew wrote:
i am not able to connect to a vnc-server thats running behind the
firewall. i know that the vncserver is running because i can open
vncviewers from other clients behind the firewall. but when i
ssh to the
gateway from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -L
5903:vncserver:5903 opti
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:50:52 +0100,
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:40AM -0500, Jesse Meyer wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > > ..no
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:40AM -0500, Jesse Meyer wrote:
> > However, the way I was taught it was that `virus' was already a plural
> > /did not have a plural in latin.
>
> As I said:
>
> > > Anyway, there are no recorded instances of a Latin plural
Op di 26-08-2003, om 02:24 schreef Colin Watson:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> That's a new plural of "virus" to me ...
>
> ["viri" and "virii" are both wrong. The first is made up by assuming
> that "virus" is a Latin masculine second declension noun, which it
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:38:40AM -0500, Jesse Meyer wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > ..no rule witout exeption: these 2 minutes _are_ useful in tarpits,
> > > to help slow vira propagation:
> >
> > That's a
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..no rule witout exeption: these 2 minutes _are_ useful in tarpits,
> > to help slow vira propagation:
>
> That's a new plural of "virus" to me ...
>
> [ SNIP explanation of latin plural
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:01:05AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> ..no rule witout exeption: these 2 minutes _are_ useful in tarpits,
> to help slow vira propagation:
That's a new plural of "virus" to me ...
["viri" and "virii" are both wrong. The first is made up by assuming
that "virus" is a Lat
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:44:32 -0400,
Derrick 'dman' Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:10:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> | On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:51:37 -0500 "P. Kallakuri"
> | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | > i cannot find what proce
> i am not able to connect to a vnc-server thats running behind the
> firewall. i know that the vncserver is running because i can open
> vncviewers from other clients behind the firewall. but when i
> ssh to the
> gateway from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -L
> 5903:vncserver:5903 option and fo
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:10:12PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
| On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:51:37 -0500 "P. Kallakuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > i cannot find what process is keeping them. i know that i disabled ICMP
| > requests on my gateway,
|
| Ungh. Why? Why disable ICMP. I never figured t
* Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030825 14:02]:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:51:37 -0500
> "P. Kallakuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i cannot find what process is keeping them. i know that i disabled ICMP
> > requests on my gateway,
>
> Ungh. Why? Why disable ICMP.
Seconded, with a large
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:51:37PM -0500, P. Kallakuri wrote:
> i am not able to connect to a vnc-server thats running behind the
> firewall. i know that the vncserver is running because i can open
> vncviewers from other clients behind the firewall. but when i ssh to the
> gateway from [EMAIL P
* P. Kallakuri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030825 13:55]:
> [...] when i ssh to the
> gateway from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -L
> 5903:vncserver:5903 option and forward from the gateway to the vncserver
> using another ssh -L ..., i am not able to connect to the vncserver at
> port 5903 on localhost.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:51:37 -0500
"P. Kallakuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> vncviewers from other clients behind the firewall. but when i ssh to the
> gateway from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -L
> 5903:vncserver:5903 option and forward from the gateway to the vncserver
> using another ssh -L .
this is not really a debian question, but i tried elsewhere and got no
satisfying answers. i have seen bunch of geniuses on this list, so i can
risk the kicking-around for an answer!! :)
here's the output of nmap of my gateway/firewall:
Port State Service
22/tcp openssh
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 07:02:22PM +0200, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there software that allows me to transparently forward internet
> connections through an ssh tunnel?
>
> I.e. I want to transparently automate the following commands:
>
> $ ssh -L :: -N &
> $ netcat local
Hi,
is there software that allows me to transparently forward internet
connections through an ssh tunnel?
I.e. I want to transparently automate the following commands:
$ ssh -L :: -N &
$ netcat localhost
So that every internet connection I make goes through the ssh tunnel and
34 matches
Mail list logo
