(Conor Daly:)
> Rick Scott thought:
> > Subba didn't mention what kernel zie was running, but I've still
> > got 2.2.17, and my logfiles look the same:
> >
> > shadow> ./packets
> ^
> This "packets". A script yes? Could you post/mail?
Not so much a script; more like "an act
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:34:25PM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Rick Scott thought:
> Subba didn't mention what kernel zie was running, but I've still
> got 2.2.17, and my logfiles look the same:
>
> shadow> ./packets
^
This "packets". A script yes? Could you post
(Subba Rao:)
> >
> >> Mar 18 18:39:48 pasta kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth2 PROTO=6
> >> 24.24.63.86:62779 10.23.86.125:113 L=60 S=0x00 I=26383 F=0x4000
> >> T=52 SYN (#11)
(coldfire:)
> if the kernel's logging it .. i'm assuming it's a 2.4.x kernel, and
> therfore this person better be
(Subba Rao:)
> Mar 18 18:39:48 pasta kernel: Packet log: input DENY eth2 PROTO=6
> 24.24.63.86:62779 10.23.86.125:113 L=60 S=0x00 I=26383 F=0x4000
> T=52 SYN (#11)
^^
If I surmise correctly, this (#11) should be the number of the
rule that's causing the packet to be dropped on th
On 0, Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have implemented one particular rule on the input chain. The rule explicitly
> REJECTs queries on port 113. In my kernel-logs, the access is logged in as
> a DENY.
>
> Here is the rule syntax:
>
> ipchains -A input -j REJECT -i eth2 -s an
