On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 19:23:24 +0100
Geert Stappers wrote:
> > "netstat" zit er tegenwoordig niet meer standaard in
>
> De opvolger is `ss`, dump socket statistics.
> Mijn ezelsbrug is "show socket"
Ja, maar netstat zit hardcoded in mijn vingers :)
&
...
> > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
> > -
>
> Kijk eens wat er allemaal luistert:
>
> # netstat -lnt
>
> Je kunt uitvinden welk proces er bijhoort:
>
> # fuser 443/tcp
> 12345
>
> O ja:
>
> # apt install net-
Thanks!
On Friday, September 21, 2018 02:10:40 PM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:52:00PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What is that telling me
Hi.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:52:00PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2018 08:55:21 AM Henning Follmann wrote:
> > Run a netstat -t -l and you will see there is nothing listening. So what is
> > the point of running a firewall?
>
>
On Friday, September 21, 2018 08:55:21 AM Henning Follmann wrote:
> Run a netstat -t -l and you will see there is nothing listening. So what is
> the point of running a firewall?
I'm not the OP, but I decided to play along and run:
root@s19:~# netstat -t -l
Active Internet connections
Le 18/03/2018 à 12:24, Pascal Hambourg a écrit :
Fais en sorte que eth0 ne tombe pas. Par exemple avec une
configuration IP statique.
justement, c'est le problème que j'ai, la, j'ai pris l'exemple d'une vm,
mais sur mon serveur, eth0 est une connexion qui doit être en dhcp,
(ftth
a un mais, c'est que
dans netstat, ça affiche la connexion établie par eth0, donc, si pour
n'importe quel raison eth0 tombe, la connexion se réinitialise ...
Fais en sorte que eth0 ne tombe pas. Par exemple avec une configuration
IP statique.
comment faire pour que ça passe bien par eth1 dès
redirige le port tcp 80 en destination vers eth1
avec iptables et le marquage de paquet. aucun souci pour ça, ça
fonctionne bien, ça sort bien par eth1. Mais il y a un mais, c'est que
dans netstat, ça affiche la connexion établie par eth0, donc, si pour
n'importe quel raison eth0 tombe, la
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:08:34AM +0100, Michael Grant wrote:
> > > % who
> > > mgrant pts/12016-07-18 06:15 (2a00:S.1)
> >
> > I type "who" on Debian jessie and I do get the full IPv6 address:
> >
> > $ who
> > andy pts/62016-07-23 01:42 (2001:ba8:1f1:f019::2)
I just figured out what is going on. The problem is gnu screen.
It's screen that's truncating the address. When login and don't reattach
to my screen, I get the full address and "PROCPS_FROMLEN=40 w" prints the
expected full address.
put the hostname/IP at the end does allow
> it to be of arbitrary length:
>
> $ last -a
> andy pts/6Sat Jul 23 01:42 still logged in
> 2001:ba8:1f1:f019::2
last -a and netstat --wide do help, thanks for that!
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:53:07AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:57:32PM +0100, Michael Grant wrote:
> > netstat does a little better still but not much:
> >
> > tcp6 0 2640 2600:3c00:::9:22 2a00:23c4:6d10:4d:36663
> > EST
the hostname/IP at the end does allow
it to be of arbitrary length:
$ last -a
andy pts/6Sat Jul 23 01:42 still logged in2001:ba8:1f1:f019::2
>
> netstat does a little better still but not much:
>
> tcp6 0 2640 2600:3c00:::9:22 2a00:23c4:6d10:4d:36663
&
, it truncates at 16 characters:
mgrant pts/02a00:23c4:6d10:4 Fri Jul 22 18:04:00 2016 still
logged in
netstat does a little better still but not much:
tcp6 0 2640 2600:3c00:::9:22 2a00:23c4:6d10:4d:36663
ESTABLISHED 12345/sshd: mgrant
It seems near impossible to find out what
On Ma, 05 iul 11, 18:13:06, William Hopkins wrote:
The primary reasons are 1) reliability separate from your ISP and 2) verified
correct results without NXDOMAIN spam and other such things.
[...]
Please believe point 2 is based in verified and somewhat commonly-known fact,
and not
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 12:23:39, William Hopkins wrote:
On 07/02/11 at 02:06pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
for the local network + bind for authoritative.
Not sure what
On 07/05/11 at 10:09pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 12:23:39, William Hopkins wrote:
On 07/02/11 at 02:06pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
for the local
On Tue 05 Jul 2011 at 22:09:38 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
[snip recursive explanation]
It was a really good explanation, wasn't it?
Thanks a lot for this explanation, DNS is still a bit like dark magic to
me :)
I suspect you may be doing yourself an injustice. :)
My understanding is
On 07/05/11 at 11:18pm, Brian wrote:
On Tue 05 Jul 2011 at 22:09:38 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
[snip recursive explanation]
It was a really good explanation, wasn't it?
Thanks a lot for this explanation, DNS is still a bit like dark magic to
me :)
I suspect you may be doing
On Tue 05 Jul 2011 at 18:13:06 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
The primary reasons are 1) reliability separate from your ISP and 2) verified
correct results without NXDOMAIN spam and other such things. For 1, although
your ISPs routers may be up their DNS may go down or become incorrectly
On 01/07/11 23:21, William Hopkins wrote:
On 07/02/11 at 12:01am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 29 iun 11, 20:08:16, Brian wrote:
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
for the local network + bind for authoritative.
Not sure what recursive means, but dnsmasq shines on your gateway,
where it can provide DHCP too and make sure your local
On 07/02/11 at 02:06pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
for the local network + bind for authoritative.
Not sure what recursive means [...]
Recursive queries are what actual DNS
On Mi, 29 iun 11, 20:08:16, Brian wrote:
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
apt-get install unbound
If caching is all you need then
apt-get install
On 07/02/11 at 12:01am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 29 iun 11, 20:08:16, Brian wrote:
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
apt-get install unbound
If
On Sat 02 Jul 2011 at 00:01:29 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
If caching is all you need then
apt-get install dnsmasq
I quite like unbound's DNSSEC aspect.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
I notice that the following two invocations of netstat have
drastically different execution times:
netstat
netstat -n
When you just use numerical addresses, it executes almost instantly,
but with the domain names and whatever you call those logical names
for the port numbers, such as 'www
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:15:58 -0600, ChadDavis wrote:
I notice that the following two invocations of netstat have drastically
different execution times:
netstat
netstat -n
When you just use numerical addresses, it executes almost instantly, but
with the domain names and whatever you
On 06/29/11 at 10:15am, ChadDavis wrote:
I notice that the following two invocations of netstat have
drastically different execution times:
netstat
netstat -n
When you just use numerical addresses, it executes almost instantly,
but with the domain names and whatever you call those
On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:51 AM, William Hopkins wrote:
On 06/29/11 at 10:15am, ChadDavis wrote:
Not a big deal, but just made me think. Surely the name resolution
isn't that costly is it?
Depends on latency and distance to your DNS server, how long it takes the DNS
server to perform the
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
apt-get install unbound
:-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On 06/29/11 at 08:08pm, Brian wrote:
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
apt-get install unbound
Monoculture is one thing, but that is not a comparable product.
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 15:27:53 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
Monoculture is one thing, but that is not a comparable product. Unbound is for
recursive-only, so you can't have your own zone.
Within the context of the thread I thought it a good fit and worth a
mention.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:27 PM, William Hopkins wrote:
Also, the Debian package name for ISC BIND is bind9.
Good point, well taken. Oops...
--
Glenn English
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On 06/29/11 at 08:44pm, Brian wrote:
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 15:27:53 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
Monoculture is one thing, but that is not a comparable product. Unbound is
for
recursive-only, so you can't have your own zone.
Within the context of the thread I thought it a good fit
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 16:36:51 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
Agreed, I was just replying to your monoculture comment.. running a local
recursive server is still a great idea (and thread contribution). Sorry if I
implied otherwise!
I didn't take it that way. You made a fair technical point and
netstat -tu shows a connection to 172.22.202:microsoft-ds.
This connection is there all the time, even after I have
closed all web browers and network connections I know of. I
still can't think of any reason why I am connected to
172.22.202.*. My firestarter GUI shows the full IP address
being
I found out why.
The outbound IP address belongs to a Windows NT machine for a
shared drive.
My paranoia.
Yuelin.
-- Yuelin Li wrote --|Mon (Nov/15/2010)[04:42]|--:
netstat -tu shows a connection to 172.22.202:microsoft-ds.
This connection is there all the time, even after I have
Yuelin Li li...@mskcc.org wrote:
netstat -tu shows a connection to 172.22.202:microsoft-ds.
172.22 is part of rfc1918 address space, and therefore cannot be anywhere
other than on your own network (or, I suppose, your ISP's network).
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local AddressForeign Address
On 06/20/2010 10:27 AM, Huang, Tao wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Stan Hoeppners...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Ron Johnson put forth on 6/20/2010 1:58 AM:
$ netstat -an | grep ^tcp\ | grep -v LISTEN | wc -l
111
You might get a more accurate count of BitTorrent connections
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
[snip]
Nope, since that also returns tcp6 packets. This does it simplest:
$ netstat -ant4
so you are not taking use of ipv6 p2p.
Tao
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On 06/20/2010 08:07 PM, Huang, Tao wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
[snip]
Nope, since that also returns tcp6 packets. This does it simplest:
$ netstat -ant4
so you are not taking use of ipv6 p2p.
Should I be? After all, my ISP only uses
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:44:12 +1100
Subject: RE: netstat ?
From: t...@clewlow.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
tcpdump host 172.16.4.1 -XX
if you want to save the data in a file for later analysis
tcpdump host 172.16.4.1 -XX somefile
**
if you want to know
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:12:57AM +, Hadi Motamedi
wrote:
But I cannot see any human readable text being captured .
Can you please correct me what I am doing wrong here ?
What is the actual protocol you are trying to read? You
probably need to use a friendly protocol dissector to read
and
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:14:33 +
From: j...@debian.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: netstat ?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:12:57AM +, Hadi Motamedi
wrote:
But I cannot see any human readable text being captured .
Can you please correct me what I am doing
2010/2/24 Hadi Motamedi motamed...@hotmail.com:
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:14:33 +
From: j...@debian.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: netstat ?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:12:57AM +, Hadi Motamedi
wrote:
But I cannot see any human readable text being captured
In snt125-w15d8798ce78492e10162b5db...@phx.gbl, Hadi Motamedi wrote:
deb http://archive.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib non-free
Sarge is no longer supported. I'm not sure if Etch is even supported any
more. You need to upgrade to Lenny.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,=
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:41:09 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Sarge is no longer supported.
He hasn't got a security repository, so he probably realises that!
quote
Please find below my Debian repository :
deb http://archive.debian.org/debian sarge main contrib non-free
/quote
Lisi
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. writes:
I'm not sure if Etch is even supported any more.
Etch is supported. It is the current Oldstable.
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianOldStable
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Etch security support ended 2010-02-15: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEtch
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:09 AM, John Hasler jhas...@debian.org wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. writes:
I'm not sure if Etch is even supported any more.
Etch is supported. It is the current Oldstable.
Jordan Metzmeier writes:
Etch security support ended 2010-02-15:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEtch
A huge slug of Etch security updates came out yesterday. Look at
debian-changes.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Qua, 24 Fev 2010, Jon Dowland wrote:
What is the actual protocol you are trying to read? You
probably need to use a friendly protocol dissector to read
and interpret your packet capture. Wireshark can do this.
# tcpdump src 172.16.4.1 -w output-file
$ sudo wireshark output-file
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br wrote:
On Qua, 24 Fev 2010, Jon Dowland wrote:
What is the actual protocol you are trying to read? You
probably need to use a friendly protocol dissector to read
and interpret your packet capture. Wireshark can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Hasler wrote:
Jordan Metzmeier writes:
Etch security support ended 2010-02-15:
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEtch
A huge slug of Etch security updates came out yesterday. Look at
debian-changes.
- From one respective security announcement
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:55:31 -0500
Jordan Metzmeier titan8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br wrote:
On Qua, 24 Fev 2010, Jon Dowland wrote:
What is the actual protocol you are trying to read? You
probably need to use a
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Celejar cele...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:55:31 -0500
Jordan Metzmeier titan8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br wrote:
On Qua, 24 Fev 2010, Jon Dowland wrote:
What is the
[Please reply only to the list, as per the CoC.]
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:56:48 -0500
Jordan Metzmeier titan8...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Celejar cele...@gmail.com wrote:
...
In Debian, Wireshark should probably never be run as root, even when
capturing packets.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:48:32PM +0100, Javier Barroso wrote:
2010/2/24 Hadi Motamedi motamed...@hotmail.com:
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:14:33 +
From: j...@debian.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: netstat ?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:12:57AM +, Hadi
Dear All
My Debian server is at @172.16.128.1 and the remote network element is at
@172.16.4.1 , but the 'netstat' does not show the ip address and the assigned
port from my Debian . It just shows many dedicated ports , assigned with
'0.0.0.0:xx' format . Can you please let me know how can I
In snt125-w503ad2f570f2c86ce7a4afdb...@phx.gbl, Hadi Motamedi wrote:
My Debian server is at @172.16.128.1 and the remote network element is at
@172.16.4.1 , but the 'netstat' does not show the ip address and the
assigned port from my Debian . It just shows many dedicated ports ,
assigned
From: b...@iguanasuicide.net
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: netstat ?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:59:41 -0600
In snt125-w503ad2f570f2c86ce7a4afdb...@phx.gbl, Hadi Motamedi wrote:
My Debian server is at @172.16.128.1 and the remote network element is at
@172.16.4.1
In snt125-w503ad2f570f2c86ce7a4afdb...@phx.gbl, Hadi Motamedi
wrote:
My Debian server is at @172.16.128.1 and the remote network
element is at
@172.16.4.1 ,
Thank you for your reply . Sorry , you mean the tcpdump can be used
to monitor the exchanged packets toward an spesific ip address
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:17:11 +1100
Subject: RE: netstat ?
From: t...@clewlow.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
In snt125-w503ad2f570f2c86ce7a4afdb...@phx.gbl, Hadi Motamedi
wrote:
My Debian server is at @172.16.128.1 and the remote network
element is at
@172.16.4.1
tcpdump host 172.16.4.1 -XX
if you want to save the data in a file for later analysis
tcpdump host 172.16.4.1 -XX somefile
**
if you want to know why you are doing this
man tcpdump
Regards, Tim.
Thank you for your reply . Sorry , Is this equal to the following ?
#tcpdump
Israel Garcia igalva...@gmail.com wrote:
server:~# netstat -tulp
Active Internet connections (only servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State
PID/Program name
tcp 0 0 *:mysql *:* LISTEN
14399/mysqld
tcp 0 0
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Israel Garcia igalva...@gmail.com wrote:
netstat output:
server:~# netstat -tulp
Active Internet connections (only servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address
State PID/Program name
tcp 0 0 *:mysql
netstat output:
server:~# netstat -tulp
Active Internet connections (only servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address
State PID/Program name
tcp0 0 *:mysql *:*
LISTEN 14399/mysqld
tcp0 0 server.domain.:www
Buenas lista.
En un equipo con Debian Lenny recién salidito del horno la salida de
netstat -tanp | grep LISTEN me arroja lo siguiente:
tcp0 0 0.0.0.0:39689 http://0.0.0.0:39689
0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 2399/rpc.statd
tcp0 0 0.0.0.0:111 http
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 04:05:15PM -0300, tq wrote:
Buenas lista.
En un equipo con Debian Lenny recién salidito del horno la salida de
netstat -tanp | grep LISTEN me arroja lo siguiente:
tcp0 0 0.0.0.0:39689 http://0.0.0.0:39689
0.0.0.0:* LISTEN
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 06:34:12AM -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Robert Hodgins writes:
Gibosn's site scans the first 1056 ports.
By default. It will scan them all if you tell it to.
That's a good hint!
I get:
You are from Oaxaca De Juárez, 20, in the MX, with an
John Hasler wrote:
Robert Hodgins writes:
Gibosn's site scans the first 1056 ports.
By default. It will scan them all if you tell it to.
That's a good hint!
I get:
You are from Oaxaca De Juárez, 20, in the MX, with an ip of xxx.xx.xxx.xxx
Do I care that that is public info?
Hugo
--
To
Hugo writes:
You are from Oaxaca De Juárez, 20, in the MX, with an ip of
xxx.xx.xxx.xxx Do I care that that is public info?
If you do you better get off the Net. He's guessing the location from the
IP, which is in every packet you send.
--
John Hasler
Adam Hardy wrote:
One routine check that I do on my webserver to check it's OK is
netstat, and this time it looks like I was under attack from some
muppet out there via what seems to be a brute force attempt to crack
my ssh login.
(We're all seeing this all the time.)
Trying to understand
One routine check that I do on my webserver to check it's OK is netstat,
and this time it looks like I was under attack from some muppet out
there via what seems to be a brute force attempt to crack my ssh login.
Trying to understand the info, what is the foreign address
On Saturday 10 November 2007 04:46, Adam Hardy wrote:
One routine check that I do on my webserver to check it's OK is netstat,
and this time it looks like I was under attack from some muppet out
there via what seems to be a brute force attempt to crack my ssh login.
Trying to understand
El sáb, 10-11-2007 a las 12:46 +, Adam Hardy escribió:
[...]
I can't see anything running on the server now that might be using those
ports, but then if it's rootkitted, I wouldn't would I? Is there a
website out there that I can use from outside my firewall which I can
get a good
On 11/10/2007 04:40 PM, Gabriel Parrondo wrote:
El sáb, 10-11-2007 a las 12:46 +, Adam Hardy escribió:
[...]
I can't see anything running on the server now that might be using those
ports, but then if it's rootkitted, I wouldn't would I? Is there a
website out there that I can use from
On Saturday 10 November 2007 22:40, Gabriel Parrondo wrote:
El sáb, 10-11-2007 a las 12:46 +, Adam Hardy escribió:
[...]
I can't see anything running on the server now that might be using those
ports, but then if it's rootkitted, I wouldn't would I? Is there a
website out there that I
That would be Steve Gibsons's site, that I've often used.
http://www.grc.com
Gibosn's site scans the first 1056 ports. This site
(http://www.auditmypc.com/firewall-test.asp) scans up to 65535.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Nigel writes:
That would be Steve Gibsons's site, that I've often used.
http://www.grc.com
That's a convenient way to run nmap remotely but don't pay attention to his
advice about security.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Robert Hodgins writes:
Gibosn's site scans the first 1056 ports.
By default. It will scan them all if you tell it to.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sayın Yetkili,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] BLOCKED::mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# date; netstat -rn | grep
81.213.182.43
Fri Dec 22 14:14:28 EET 2006
adl-ipsi-bizim127.0.0.1UH1 64300 lo0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] BLOCKED::mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# date
im verdacht. Ich würde die
Traffic mal gerne scannen, habe damit aber keine Erfahrung. Nehmr ich
netstat oder top oder was ganz anderes. Hat beides wirre parameter
die ich nicht wirklich zu deuten weis.
Kann mir jemand mit den parametern auf die sprünge helfen?
--
cu
Roland Kruggel mailto
Am Montag 17 Juli 2006 15:02 schrieb Roland M. Kruggel:
einwandfrei. Mailclient ist Thunderbird. 20 PC's im Netz - 19 laufen
einwandfrei, nur der eine nicht.
Gehen die alle auf den gleichen Smarthost, oder kann es sein, das der
empfangende SMTP-Server so große Mails einfach blockt/bestraft
Am Montag, 17. Juli 2006 15:57 schrieb Christian Frommeyer:
Am Montag 17 Juli 2006 15:02 schrieb Roland M. Kruggel:
einwandfrei. Mailclient ist Thunderbird. 20 PC's im Netz - 19
laufen einwandfrei, nur der eine nicht.
Gehen die alle auf den gleichen Smarthost, oder kann es sein, das
der
Roland M. Kruggel schrieb:
Hallo Liste,
[...]
Ich habe schon die Netztwerkkarte des PC im verdacht. Ich würde die
Traffic mal gerne scannen, habe damit aber keine Erfahrung. Nehmr ich
netstat oder top oder was ganz anderes. Hat beides wirre parameter
die ich nicht wirklich zu deuten weis
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:02:58PM +0200, Roland M. Kruggel wrote:
Hallo Liste,
ich habe das Problem das von einem XP-Pc keine großen Mail (z.B. 4
Seiten pdf-file) weitergeleitet/gesendet werden können. (Debian etch
mit postfix.) Beim senden werden die erten 15 bin 20% relativ zügig
Am Montag, 17. Juli 2006 15:44 schrieb klaus zerwes:
Roland M. Kruggel schrieb:
Hallo Liste,
[...]
Ich habe schon die Netztwerkkarte des PC im verdacht. Ich würde
die Traffic mal gerne scannen, habe damit aber keine Erfahrung.
Nehmr ich netstat oder top oder was ganz anderes. Hat
Am Montag, 17. Juli 2006 16:53 schrieb Nico Jochens:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 03:02:58PM +0200, Roland M. Kruggel wrote:
Hallo Liste,
ich habe das Problem das von einem XP-Pc keine großen Mail (z.B. 4
Seiten pdf-file) weitergeleitet/gesendet werden können. (Debian
etch mit postfix.) Beim
hola lista.
alguien sabe que puede significar esta salida de netstat en una de mis pcs?
tcp0 0 fedora:58894 w160082.wireless.:65533
ESTABLISHED
tcp0 0 fedora:34819 baym-cs187.msgr.ho:msnp
ESTABLISHED
Muchas gracias.
Salu2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 08:48:23PM -0300, ciracusa wrote:
hola lista.
alguien sabe que puede significar esta salida de netstat en una de mis pcs?
tcp0 0 fedora:58894 w160082.wireless.:65533 ESTABLISHED
Que hay una conexión tcp establecida del puerto 58894 de la
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 04:38:41PM +0200, stentor wrote:
Witam!
w podlaczonej do mojego serwera sieci LAN uzytkownicy korzystaja z
programow p2p
jestem uzytkownikiem ADLS'a z dialogu
netstat
Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address
Witam!
w podlaczonej do mojego serwera sieci LAN uzytkownicy korzystaja z
programow p2p
jestem uzytkownikiem ADLS'a z dialogu
netstat
Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State
tcp0 0 :microsoft-ds
Witam!
netstat
Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State
tcp0 0 :microsoft-ds xdsl-3112.zgora.di:1980 ESTABLISHED
tcp0 52 :ssheg162.internetdsl.:1321 ESTABLISHED
tcp
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 11:07:35AM +0200, stentor wrote:
linia 1. to adres mojego ISP z dialogu ale linia 3. to nie wiem kto
netstat -n
host ip
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsiany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4
Mankuthimma on 18/02/06 02:19, wrote:
On 2/18/06, *Adam Hardy* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use netstat to check what's going on with the ports on my hosted
server each night, and I have got this entry (see below, last on the
list).
Is this the one
I use netstat to check what's going on with the ports on my hosted
server each night, and I have got this entry (see below, last on the list).
This has occurred 3 days in a row now. This is not a user, and I have
jakarta-tomcat running a java appserver on that HTTPS port. I can't see
any
Is this some brute force dictionary attack in progress on my webserver?
The full foreign address is zns551-ga01a.us.yokogawa.com.
Those nasty people in Yokogawa!
Original Message
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:00:07 + (GMT)
Active Internet connections (servers and
Adam Hardy wrote:
Is this some brute force dictionary attack in progress on my webserver?
The full foreign address is zns551-ga01a.us.yokogawa.com.
Those nasty people in Yokogawa!
Original Message
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:00:07 + (GMT)
Active Internet connections
On 8/19/05, Andreas Brillisauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kurz gesagt: Evolution produziert beim Starten meistens einen
netstat-Zombie-Prozess, der bis zum Beenden von Evolution in der
Prozessliste auftaucht.
Ich hab mal das gleiche beim Mozilla bemerkt, aber da war es kein Bug sondern
ein
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
