Hi
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he wants to
access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a transparent
proxy server on the DMZ. apt-cache search proxy gave a few options but
except squid (which is a little overkill for this) I don't know any of
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he wants to
access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a transparent
proxy server on the DMZ. apt-cache search proxy gave a few options but
except
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he wants to
access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a transparent
proxy server
Dale Amon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he
wants to access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a
Right, I've upgraded to freeswan 2.01 from backports.org. This was
because the 1.96 that I was using from Woody didn't recognise the
leftprotoport and rightprotoport commands. I apt-got the source,
grepped, and sure enough they weren't there. This leads me to believe
that the
But now I have a
Antony Gelberg schrieb:
Right, I've upgraded to freeswan 2.01 from backports.org. This was
because the 1.96 that I was using from Woody didn't recognise the
leftprotoport and rightprotoport commands. I apt-got the source,
grepped, and sure enough they weren't there. This leads me to believe
Antony Gelberg wrote:
Right, I've upgraded to freeswan 2.01 from backports.org. This was
because the 1.96 that I was using from Woody didn't recognise the
leftprotoport and rightprotoport commands. I apt-got the source,
grepped, and sure enough they weren't there. This leads me to believe
that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Maybe have a look at sslwrap+redir, or stunnel, which can run on any
machine in your DMZ and forward incoming connections to the internal
machine, adding SSL encryption to make it more secure.
There is no need to add SSL encryption, IIS can do that
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 07:15, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Dale Amon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he
wants to access the
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 11:01, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
[...]
Unfortunatelly there are not much free HTTP Application Level Gateways (reverse
proxies) out there which do good filtering. (And I am not sure if there are non-free
which are good, either:). Some are listed on:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
How about Apache with mod_security [1]? Looks pretty good to me.
Cant speak about the module, thanks for the hint. Personally I think Apache
is too bloated to be used on a bastion gateway.
Greetings
Bernd
--
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
However, for virtual hosting across multiple back-end machines with
authentication at the firewall, I found apache2 + mod_ssl + mod_proxy
more suitable. Moreover, pound does not provide caching for
acceleration, nor ssl on the back channel.
The question
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 13:17, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
However, for virtual hosting across multiple back-end machines with
authentication at the firewall, I found apache2 + mod_ssl + mod_proxy
more suitable. Moreover, pound does not provide caching for
on Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:03:09AM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Monday 29 December 2003 00:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
_Random_ padding won't be
effective. ?_Targeted_ padding will be, though spammers would have to
target the non-spam keyword list of individual
Hi
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he wants to
access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a transparent
proxy server on the DMZ. apt-cache search proxy gave a few options but
except squid (which is a little overkill for this) I don't know any of
Right, I've upgraded to freeswan 2.01 from backports.org. This was
because the 1.96 that I was using from Woody didn't recognise the
leftprotoport and rightprotoport commands. I apt-got the source,
grepped, and sure enough they weren't there. This leads me to believe
that the
But now I have a
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he wants to
access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a transparent
proxy server
Dale Amon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he
wants to access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he wants to
access the web interface from the world. I thought I'll put a transparent
proxy server on the DMZ. apt-cache search proxy gave a few options but
except
Antony Gelberg schrieb:
Right, I've upgraded to freeswan 2.01 from backports.org. This was
because the 1.96 that I was using from Woody didn't recognise the
leftprotoport and rightprotoport commands. I apt-got the source,
grepped, and sure enough they weren't there. This leads me to
Antony Gelberg wrote:
Right, I've upgraded to freeswan 2.01 from backports.org. This was
because the 1.96 that I was using from Woody didn't recognise the
leftprotoport and rightprotoport commands. I apt-got the source,
grepped, and sure enough they weren't there. This leads me to believe
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Maybe have a look at sslwrap+redir, or stunnel, which can run on any
machine in your DMZ and forward incoming connections to the internal
machine, adding SSL encryption to make it more secure.
There is no need to add SSL encryption, IIS can do that
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 05:01:44PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Unfortunatelly there are not much free HTTP Application Level Gateways
(reverse
proxies) out there which do good filtering. (And I am not sure if there are
non-free
which are good, either:). Some are listed on:
How about
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 07:15, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
Dale Amon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0200, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
I have a client that have an exchange server inside the LAN and he
wants to access the
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 11:01, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
[...]
Unfortunatelly there are not much free HTTP Application Level Gateways
(reverse
proxies) out there which do good filtering. (And I am not sure if there are
non-free
which are good, either:). Some are listed on:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
However, for virtual hosting across multiple back-end machines with
authentication at the firewall, I found apache2 + mod_ssl + mod_proxy
more suitable. Moreover, pound does not provide caching for
acceleration, nor ssl on the back channel.
The question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
How about Apache with mod_security [1]? Looks pretty good to me.
Cant speak about the module, thanks for the hint. Personally I think Apache
is too bloated to be used on a bastion gateway.
Greetings
Bernd
--
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 13:17, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
However, for virtual hosting across multiple back-end machines with
authentication at the firewall, I found apache2 + mod_ssl + mod_proxy
more suitable. Moreover, pound does not provide caching for
on Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:03:09AM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Monday 29 December 2003 00:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
_Random_ padding won't be
effective. ?_Targeted_ padding will be, though spammers would have to
target the non-spam keyword list of individual
29 matches
Mail list logo
