Re: red worm amusement

Microsoft Windows is not really bad, if you know how to admin it. However, Microsoft give this on its web site: http://www.microsoft.com/NTWorkstation/downloads/Recommended/Featured/NTZAK. asp Oh my god... "Zero Administration" ? Luckily, Debian is asking their administrator check for security up

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:01:55AM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > Well, someone has decided to attack me for using an analogy, so I will > refrain from saying how this doesn't go with what I'm saying. Oh, grow up. I did not "attack" you, I questioned the wisdom of comparing running services on a c

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:14AM -0400, Steven Barker wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 08:51:23PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > > > No, I'm simply saying not to start services immediately. > > ... > > I think that there should be a way to install a debian server packages > without havin

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:42:28AM +0200, Martin Bieder wrote: > > WARNING: You have started this car! You are about to drive this car. > That means, you will be moving, what means that accidents could be > harmful for you. Do you really want to proceed? > > [Yes] [No][Abort]

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 08:51:23PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > No, I'm simply saying not to start services immediately. Well, I'm going to wade into this growing flamewar to point out what I think is a sound idea. The trouble with the current system is that installed daemons automatically

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:34:56PM -0500, Dana J. Laude wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700 Jacob Meuser wrote: > > IMHO, no distribution is secure out of the box. Hell, > even OpenBSD has had major blunders in their lastest > release. Security is, after all... an ongoing issue >

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 11:39:36PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > I think it is quite fitting. i think is a 21st century varient of Godwin's law developing. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ PGP signature

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:42:28AM +0200, Martin Bieder wrote: > > WARNING: You have started this car! You are about to drive this car. > That means, you will be moving, what means that accidents could be > harmful for you. Do you really want to proceed? > > [Yes] [No][Abort]

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 08:21:09PM -0700, Nicole Zimmerman wrote: > > > > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > > > The difference is, those were not exploitable. > > And they are on debian?

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:34:50AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 09:28:35PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > PS We don't give guns to children, do we? > > What the hell does this have to do with running services on a freaking > computer connected to the Internet? You are

Re: iptables logging

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 08:18:34AM +0200, Matthias Richter wrote: > You need to tell iptables which packages should be logged. For example: > > iptables -N log # This table logs and hands package over to "delete" > iptables -N delete - This table rejects anything > > iptables -A INPUT -j log

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 09:02:54PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > Oh, I guess anyone can say something like "Four years without a remote > hole in the default install!" on the internet, where anyone is free to that quote is pure marketing. they don't count the recent ftpd remote root hole in th

Re: red worm amusement

Nicole Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turning off services makes an excuse for the real problem -- software > needs to be secure, and people need to make sure they are using software > that is secure. There's no such thing as absolute security. Every service you run will have bugs and s

Re: red worm amusement

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > "Martin" == Martin Bieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Martin> WARNING: You have started this car! You are about to drive this Martin> car. That means, you will be moving, what means that accidents Martin> could be harmful for you. Do you reall

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:34:47AM -0500, Rob VanFleet wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > And whose going to teach them? Certainly not an OS that makes it as > > easy as 'apt-get install apache' ! > > Well, your solution of maki

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:13:00PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > > > Still not the point. I'm talking about services being enabled, either > > i don't think you know what your point is. i pointed out that openbsd > starts portma

Re: iptables logging

Jeff Coppock wrote on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 10:59:08PM: >What does syslog recognize as iptables log messages? I tried >putting iptable.* in syslog.conf, but I'm not seeing messages. You need to tell iptables which packages should be logged. For example: iptables -N log # This table logs a

Re: iptables logging

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:59:08PM -0700, Jeff Coppock wrote: IIRC it uses kernel facility per default and configurable log level (via --log-level) But I'd suggest checking into ULOG-target in the patch-o-matic[1]. >What does syslog recognize as iptables log messages? I tried >putting i

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:54:49PM +1000, CaT wrote: > > You know. You're right. We should make it as difficult as possible > to install software. Right down to removing makefiles from source > repositories and rot13ing the source code because the harder it is > to install a piece of software, the

iptables logging

What does syslog recognize as iptables log messages? I tried putting iptable.* in syslog.conf, but I'm not seeing messages. thanks, jc -- Jeff CoppockNortel Networks Systems Engineerhttp://nortelnetworks.com Major Accts.Santa Clara, CA --

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700 Jacob Meuser wrote: > Not really what I was getting at. I was saying this is TOO EASY. > I'm saying that Debian doesn't do a good enough job of warning > people about doing these things. I'm thinking about first time > users who are not behind a firewall

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 04:39:48PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me twice? Our hospital is building a network and needs special software. The only software we found usefull runs under Win. We would have installed linux, but we are near

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 04:32:32PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > Not really what I was getting at. I was saying this is TOO EASY. > I'm saying that Debian doesn't do a good enough job of warning > people about doing these things.

Re: red worm amusement

> > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > The difference is, those were not exploitable. And they are on debian? Turning off services makes an excuse for the real problem -- software needs to

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > Still not the point. I'm talking about services being enabled, either i don't think you know what your point is. i pointed out that openbsd starts portmap by default, along with identd and you reply with `but they are not explo

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 09:28:35PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > PS We don't give guns to children, do we? What the hell does this have to do with running services on a freaking computer connected to the Internet? You are beginning to sound like a troll. HINT: It's difficult to kill someone with

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > And whose going to teach them? Certainly not an OS that makes it as > easy as 'apt-get install apache' ! Well, your solution of making it more obfuscated and difficult will cause even more of a problem.

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > I think a lot of people are just curious, and they install things > > > they don't need, or really have any idea of what it does. The only > > > reason they are able to get it to run is because it's easy. They may > > > not have

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 05:29:35PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > oh? and why not? don't believe OpenBSD's hype about being the apex of > computer and code security just because they have done auditing, they > still miss A LOT. thier audited ftpd had a remote root hole > recently. thier KERNEL

Re: red worm amusement

> On 20010721.2117, Jacob Meuser said ... > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 08:21:09PM -0700, Nicole Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > > > > > The difference is, t

Re: red worm amusement

> On 20010721.2117, Jacob Meuser said ... > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 08:21:09PM -0700, Nicole Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > > > > > The difference is, t

Re: red worm amusement

Microsoft Windows is not really bad, if you know how to admin it. However, Microsoft give this on its web site: http://www.microsoft.com/NTWorkstation/downloads/Recommended/Featured/NTZAK. asp Oh my god... "Zero Administration" ? Luckily, Debian is asking their administrator check for security u

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:34:56PM -0500, Dana J. Laude wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700 Jacob Meuser wrote: > > IMHO, no distribution is secure out of the box. Hell, > even OpenBSD has had major blunders in their lastest > release. Security is, after all... an ongoing issue >

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 08:21:09PM -0700, Nicole Zimmerman wrote: > > > > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > > > The difference is, those were not exploitable. > > And they are on debian?

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > The difference is, those were not exploitable. oh? and why not? don't believe OpenBSD's h

Re: red worm amusement

Nicole Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turning off services makes an excuse for the real problem -- software > needs to be secure, and people need to make sure they are using software > that is secure. There's no such thing as absolute security. Every service you run will have bugs and

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:13:00PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > > > Still not the point. I'm talking about services being enabled, either > > i don't think you know what your point is. i pointed out that openbsd > starts portm

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 04:32:32PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > if you install a service its expected you want to run it, so if you > don't need it don't install it. > Not really what I was getting at. I was saying this is TOO EASY. I'm saying that Debian doesn't do a good enough job of warnin

Re: red worm amusement

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:54:49PM +1000, CaT wrote: > > You know. You're right. We should make it as difficult as possible > to install software. Right down to removing makefiles from source > repositories and rot13ing the source code because the harder it is > to install a piece of software, th

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700 Jacob Meuser wrote: > Not really what I was getting at. I was saying this is TOO EASY. > I'm saying that Debian doesn't do a good enough job of warning > people about doing these things. I'm thinking about first time > users who are not behind a firewal

Re: red worm amusement

> > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > The difference is, those were not exploitable. And they are on debian? Turning off services makes an excuse for the real problem -- software needs to

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > Still not the point. I'm talking about services being enabled, either i don't think you know what your point is. i pointed out that openbsd starts portmap by default, along with identd and you reply with `but they are not expl

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > Well I thought I answered this question. Because Microsoft claims that you > don't need them. They promise that their servers are easy to set up and > maintain by "normal people". When your CIO goes to shop around for a > product an

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 02:00:48PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:09:07AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi c

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 07:52:02PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > I think a lot of people are just curious, and they install things > > > they don't need, or really have any idea of what it does. The only > > > reason they are able to get it to run is because it's easy. They may > > > not have

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 05:29:35PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > oh? and why not? don't believe OpenBSD's hype about being the apex of > computer and code security just because they have done auditing, they > still miss A LOT. thier audited ftpd had a remote root hole > recently. thier KERNEL

Re: about sniffing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > "Alson" == Alson van der Meulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alson> the ssh1 protocol is indeed vulnerable to the man-in-the-middle Alson> attack, use the ssh2 protocol instead, afaik it's not vulnerable, Alson> that's one of the reason the ssh2

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:27:00PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > last i used OpenBSD (2.6) it started portmap and identd by default at > > the very least, maybe fingerd too i don't remember for sure. > > > The difference is, those were not exploitable. oh? and why not? don't believe OpenBSD's

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:57:39PM +0100, Nik Butler wrote: > Jacon Said: > >> . I doubt everyone who is running servers on Debain (by choosing to do > so during > >> the 'oh so easy' installation) really knows what they're doing. > > Grr, talk about giving companies like mine a bad name, Im prom

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 04:32:32PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > if you install a service its expected you want to run it, so if you > don't need it don't install it. > Not really what I was getting at. I was saying this is TOO EASY. I'm saying that Debian doesn't do a good enough job of warni

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > Well I thought I answered this question. Because Microsoft claims that you > don't need them. They promise that their servers are easy to set up and > maintain by "normal people". When your CIO goes to shop around for a > product a

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 02:00:48PM -0700, Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:09:07AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi

Re: red worm amusement

Jacon Said: >> . I doubt everyone who is running servers on Debain (by choosing to do so during >> the 'oh so easy' installation) really knows what they're doing. Grr, talk about giving companies like mine a bad name, Im promoting Open Source software and and its benefits, I gotta sit here on a s

Re: red worm amusement

At 12:09 AM 7/21/2001 -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > You really can not blame people for not hiring > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > the NT network. oh? and whyever not? its this blatent ir

Re: about sniffing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > "Alson" == Alson van der Meulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alson> the ssh1 protocol is indeed vulnerable to the man-in-the-middle Alson> attack, use the ssh2 protocol instead, afaik it's not vulnerable, Alson> that's one of the reason the ssh2

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:09:07AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > > the NT network. > > oh? and whyever no

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:57:39PM +0100, Nik Butler wrote: > Jacon Said: > >> . I doubt everyone who is running servers on Debain (by choosing to do > so during > >> the 'oh so easy' installation) really knows what they're doing. > > Grr, talk about giving companies like mine a bad name, Im pro

Re: about sniffing

Nikolay Hristov wrote: > I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https traffic > (man-in-the-middle attack) - http://ettercap.sourceforge.net > > Is it true? And why are these certificates and SSL support for web servers? > Can someone explain why it is possible or w

Re: about sniffing

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 09:27:03PM +0100, Christian Jaeger wrote: > At 22:28 Uhr -0700 21.7.2001, Nikolay Hristov wrote: > >I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https > >traffic (man-in-the-middle attack) - > >http://ettercap.sourceforge.net

Re: red worm amusement

Jacon Said: >> . I doubt everyone who is running servers on Debain (by choosing to do so during >> the 'oh so easy' installation) really knows what they're doing. Grr, talk about giving companies like mine a bad name, Im promoting Open Source software and and its benefits, I gotta sit here on a

Re: about sniffing

At 22:28 Uhr -0700 21.7.2001, Nikolay Hristov wrote: I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https traffic (man-in-the-middle attack) - http://ettercap.sourceforge.net Is it true?  And why are these certificates and SSL support for web server

Re: red worm amusement

At 12:09 AM 7/21/2001 -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: >On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user > run > > the NT network. > >oh? and whyever not? its this b

about sniffing

Hi   I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https traffic (man-in-the-middle attack) - http://ettercap.sourceforge.net Is it true?  And why are these certificates and SSL support for web servers? Can someone explain why it is possible or why it isn't? Or give some links

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:09:07AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > > the NT network. > > oh? and whyever n

Re: about sniffing

Nikolay Hristov wrote: > I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https traffic > (man-in-the-middle attack) - http://ettercap.sourceforge.net > > Is it true? And why are these certificates and SSL support for web servers? > Can someone explain why it is possible

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:09:07AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > > the NT network. > > oh? and whyever no

Re: about sniffing

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 09:27:03PM +0100, Christian Jaeger wrote: > At 22:28 Uhr -0700 21.7.2001, Nikolay Hristov wrote: > >I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https > >traffic (man-in-the-middle attack) - > >http://ettercap.sourceforge.ne

Re: about sniffing

At 22:28 Uhr -0700 21.7.2001, Nikolay Hristov wrote: >I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https >traffic (man-in-the-middle attack) - >http://ettercap.sourceforge.net >Is it true?  And why are these certificates and SSL support for web >se

about sniffing

Hi   I've found some utilities that claims that can sniff ssh1 and https traffic (man-in-the-middle attack) - http://ettercap.sourceforge.net Is it true?  And why are these certificates and SSL support for web servers? Can someone explain why it is possible or why it isn't? Or give some links

Re: red worm amusement

On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 12:09:07AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > > You really can not blame people for not hiring > > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > > the NT network. > > oh? and whyever n

Re: red worm amusement - redirect

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: > > > hi ya Alson.. > > if ya wrote a script... was thinking..wouldnt it be funny > to redirect that incoming attack with the cgi script to > redirect it back to the incoming machine ??? I don't think the worm implements the full HTTP p

Re: red worm amusement - redirect

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:24:54PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: > > > hi ya Alson.. > > if ya wrote a script... was thinking..wouldnt it be funny > to redirect that incoming attack with the cgi script to > redirect it back to the incoming machine ??? I don't think the worm implements the full HTTP

Re: Code Red Worm ?

Le sam, 21 jui 2001 10:56:14, catalyst a écrit : > Hi, > > I'm running iptables and for the past 3 days i been hit by a multiple IP > adds on my firewall.I wonder is it from those infected IIS with red worm > ? > Here is the log i'm getting from my /var/log/messages. > > Jul 21 16:48:04 uniX kern

Code Red Worm ?

Hi, I'm running iptables and for the past 3 days i been hit by a multiple IP adds on my firewall.I wonder is it from those infected IIS with red worm ? Here is the log i'm getting from my /var/log/messages. Jul 21 16:48:04 uniX kernel: Firewall:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:50:da:91:ba:a8:00:30:94:9c:6e:

Re: red worm amusement

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > You really can not blame people for not hiring > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > the NT network. oh? and whyever not? its this blatent irreponsibilty that we have such a mess security wise

Re: Code Red Worm ?

Le sam, 21 jui 2001 10:56:14, catalyst a écrit : > Hi, > > I'm running iptables and for the past 3 days i been hit by a multiple IP > adds on my firewall.I wonder is it from those infected IIS with red worm > ? > Here is the log i'm getting from my /var/log/messages. > > Jul 21 16:48:04 uniX ker

Code Red Worm ?

Hi, I'm running iptables and for the past 3 days i been hit by a multiple IP adds on my firewall.I wonder is it from those infected IIS with red worm ? Here is the log i'm getting from my /var/log/messages. Jul 21 16:48:04 uniX kernel: Firewall:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:50:da:91:ba:a8:00:30:94:9c:6e

Re: red worm amusement

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 07:52:26PM -0700, Tim Uckun wrote: > You really can not blame people for not hiring > "expensive unix sysadmins" and letting some semi competent windows user run > the NT network. oh? and whyever not? its this blatent irreponsibilty that we have such a mess security wis

Re: iptables install

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 09:31:07PM -0700, Jeff Coppock wrote: ># modprobe ip_tables >modprobe: Can't locate module ip_tables > >But, it's definitely there. I can't figure out how to fix >this. Any help is very much appreciated. Your version of modutils's 'modprobe' doesn't lo