On Friday 28 January 2011 04:37 PM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
> On 01/28/2011 01:11 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>> um target prot opt source destination
>> 2DNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0192.168.131.133 tcp dpt:80
>>to:192.168.131.131:80
> This line doesn't look right.
On Friday 28 January 2011 07:42 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 15:31 +0530, Jatin K wrote:
>> yes it is
> Is there a device ahead of this that is firewalling?
yes there is a linksys ADSL router ( with basic firewall with only
port 80 is maped to internal port 80 )
> Because if you're
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 15:31 +0530, Jatin K wrote:
> yes it is
Is there a device ahead of this that is firewalling?
Because if you're providing a website accessible to the public, there's
no doubt that someone will try to hack you.
If you were doing what was discussed earlier on (putting in acces
On 01/28/2011 01:11 AM, Jatin K wrote:
> um target prot opt source destination
> 2DNAT all -- 0.0.0.0/0192.168.131.133 tcp dpt:80
> to:192.168.131.131:80
This line doesn't look right. Is it doing DNAT For the host
192.168.131.133 (converting it to
On Friday 28 January 2011 02:00 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:41 +0530, Jatin K wrote:
>> I've got it working and it works like anything ...
>>
>> This[1] is the output of command service iptables status
>>
>>
>> -[1]--
>>
On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 10:41 +0530, Jatin K wrote:
> I've got it working and it works like anything ...
>
> This[1] is the output of command service iptables status
>
>
> -[1]--
>
> Table: nat
> Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT)
>
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 10:21 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 21:27 +0530, Jatin K wrote:
>> I surprised that this kind of things/action can be take by the ISP
> Over here, in Australia...
>
> Some ISPs block port 80 by default, though you may enable it. I seem to
> recall that was an
