Greetings!
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:10:38PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am new user debian linux,
1. i try to configure in hosts.deny :
If you want finer access rule granulation, I'd suggest using XINETD
instead of INETD, which is available as alternate .DEB (and supported
by a
You may wish to investigate IPCHAINS (Kernel 2.2) or IPTABLES (Kernel 2.4) to
solve your problem. I have found IP CHAINS and IPTABLES more effective than
working with the TCP Daemon
Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakub Jankowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. i try to configure in hosts.deny :
ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Aku,
To deny all incoming connections for tcpwrapped ports it is
sufficient to have this line in your /etc/hosts.deny file:
ALL: ALL
The endpoint construct isn't necessary for what
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course even if tcp_wrapper gives you access the deamon doesn't
have to do so too... So, maybe it's not the wrapper that's denying you
access. If you think your hosts.deny and hosts.allow files are fine,
then maybe it's good to make sure the
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 at 22:10:38 +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am new user debian linux,
1. i try to configure in hosts.deny :
ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and try in hosts.allow :
ALL : 202.xxx.xxx.xx1, 202.xxx.xxx.xx2
But when i try from 202.xxx.xxx.xx1 and 202.xxx.xxx.xx2 the
Greetings!
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:10:38PM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am new user debian linux,
1. i try to configure in hosts.deny :
If you want finer access rule granulation, I'd suggest using XINETD
instead of INETD, which is available as alternate .DEB (and supported
by a
6 matches
Mail list logo