stop passing traffic. The idea is from rstunnel
| (Reliable SSH Tunnel), but implemented in C. Connection monitoring is done
| using a loop of port forwardings. It backs off on the rate of connection
| attempts when experiencing rapid failures such as connection refused.
Een interessante applicati
it, restarting it
| as necessary should it die or stop passing traffic. The idea is from rstunnel
| (Reliable SSH Tunnel), but implemented in C. Connection monitoring is done
| using a loop of port forwardings. It backs off on the rate of connection
| attempts when experiencing rapid failures such as connection refused.
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
Silence is hard to parse
Hallo,
Ik gebruik vaak SSH tunnels en sinds een paar dagen (nog voor de point
release) vallen die tunnels na enige tijd weg. De belangrijke
foutmelding is volgens mij deze (aan de server kant):
ssh_dispatch_run_fatal: Connection from 45.95.238.187 port 56446:
message authentication
On 9/17/20 1:27 AM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* On 2020 16 Sep 12:08 -0500, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
btw, there is package authprogs, doing exactly that and not only.
It seems to only be in Bullseye right now. It's not in Buster nor
Buster backports. As the target computer is a Freedombox, it
* On 2020 15 Sep 13:54 -0500, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote:
> To restrict what an SSH account can do, you can use the command="..."
> setting in the autorized_keys file. It is documented in sshd(8). I use
> it specifically to restrain the possible actions that can be done with
> that private key.
* On 2020 16 Sep 12:08 -0500, Alex Mestiashvili wrote:
> btw, there is package authprogs, doing exactly that and not only.
It seems to only be in Bullseye right now. It's not in Buster nor
Buster backports. As the target computer is a Freedombox, it is running
Buster so I will have to see if I
On 9/15/20 8:53 PM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote:
> Nate Bargmann writes:
>
>> I am going to be deploying a Debian system at a location where I am
>> unsure if I can make any inbound connection into that system. I am
>> going to set up an SSH tunnel from that system to a h
Nate Bargmann writes:
> I am going to be deploying a Debian system at a location where I am
> unsure if I can make any inbound connection into that system. I am
> going to set up an SSH tunnel from that system to a host in my LAN.
> What I am concerned about is the remote possibil
>Ideally, this restriction should be based on
the public key of the pair but I've not seen in sshd_config(5) a way for
the Match directive to use the public key as its trigger
Not an expert but did you look at the certificate based authentication? You
can define your own certificate authority and
Nate Bargmann wrote:
> I am going to be deploying a Debian system at a location where I am
> unsure if I can make any inbound connection into that system. I am
> going to set up an SSH tunnel from that system to a host in my LAN.
Use Wireguard. It's available in newer kernels and in
Hi All.
I am going to be deploying a Debian system at a location where I am
unsure if I can make any inbound connection into that system. I am
going to set up an SSH tunnel from that system to a host in my LAN.
What I am concerned about is the remote possibility of theft and
therefore exposing
On 2018-06-10, wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:23:06PM +0300, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using Debian Stretch and I'm trying to connect to PostgreSQL server
>> (Debian 9) with PgAdmin (Debian 9) through SSH tunnel.
>>
>> PgAdm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:23:06PM +0300, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using Debian Stretch and I'm trying to connect to PostgreSQL server
> (Debian 9) with PgAdmin (Debian 9) through SSH tunnel.
>
> PgAdmin has bu
Hi,
I'm using Debian Stretch and I'm trying to connect to PostgreSQL server
(Debian 9) with PgAdmin (Debian 9) through SSH tunnel.
PgAdmin has built-in SSH support but when I try to connect to remote
PostgreSQL server I get this error in PgAdmin:
Error: SSH error: Error when starting up SSH
List good morning,
I am trying to access our MTA from offsite over an SSH tunnel, but the
MUA (Thunderbird) is reporting a timeout on accessing the MTA.
The server is Wheezy; sshd is running; the tunnel is set up to
terminate on the same server that runs the MTA (exim), as well as
running
Hi,
I have gnome and I use a QT application (virtualbox) with a ssh
tunnel in the same computer. I use a different user than the user that
I use with Gnome.
The problem is that I get the old QT theme (Windows 95/motif style)
when I run virtualbox with a ssh tunnel. In the other hand, if I run
On 11/22/2013 03:11 PM, Dan wrote:
Hi,
I have gnome and I use a QT application (virtualbox) with a ssh
tunnel in the same computer. I use a different user than the user that
I use with Gnome.
The problem is that I get the old QT theme (Windows 95/motif style)
when I run virtualbox with a ssh
I'm seeing a delay when I attempt a connection through an ssh tunnel. The
connection's fast without the tunnel, but has an inital 80 second delay with
it.
Here's the case that works, without the tunnel. I see lines I type echoed
immediately:
server nc -l -p 1212
client nc server 1212
...@alexan.org
I'm seeing a delay when I attempt a connection through an ssh tunnel. The
connection's fast without the tunnel, but has an inital 80 second delay
with
it.
Here's the case that works, without the tunnel. I see lines I type echoed
immediately:
server nc -l -p 1212
client nc server
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:25:59PM +0200, Juan Sierra Pons wrote:
Can you launch the tunnel in verbose (-vvv) mode and send the logs?
ssh -vvv -o ExitOnForwardFailure=yes -fN -L1110:localhost:1212 server
Here's what I'm seeing with -vvv:
http://paste.debian.net/37873/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Hi,
I don't see anything strange in the logs provided. Do you see anything
strange in your dmesg, /var/log/daemon.log, etc?
Is the DNS on the server's side working properly? Sometimes when the
reverse DNS is not properly configure some TCP based services get some
delay on first connection: ssh,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:11:17PM +0200, Juan Sierra Pons wrote:
Hi,
I don't see anything strange in the logs provided. Do you see anything
strange in your dmesg, /var/log/daemon.log, etc?
Is the DNS on the server's side working properly? Sometimes when the
reverse DNS is not properly
--
Juan Sierra Pons j...@elsotanillo.net
Linux User Registered: #257202 http://www.elsotanillo.net
GPG key = 0xA110F4FE
Key Fingerprint = DF53 7415 0936 244E 9B00 6E66 E934
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 02:28:37PM +0200, Juan Sierra Pons wrote:
2013/9/10 Sean Alexandre s...@alexan.org
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:11:17PM +0200, Juan Sierra Pons wrote:
Hi,
I don't see anything strange in the logs provided. Do you see anything
strange in your dmesg,
Hello all,
Seems I'm a bit brain dead this morning, and I'm having difficulty
remembering how to set up an ssh tunnel to our development server through
the public facing system
I can ssh into pub1 just fine, and from that shell I can ssh into the
development server, dev1. What I want to do
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:24AM -0500, Nelson Green wrote:
Hello all,
Seems I'm a bit brain dead this morning, and I'm having difficulty
remembering how to set up an ssh tunnel to our development server through
the public facing system
I can ssh into pub1 just fine
On 5/22/13 4:15 PM, Nelson Green wrote:
... connect my psql client directly to that development server, on it's
port 5432. So I want to be able to locally run a command similar to:
[me@mymachine]$ psql -U dbusername -h dev1 -p xxx
where, if I remember correctly, xxx is the port I tunnel into
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Lars Noodén wrote:
One way you could try is like this[1]:
ssh -L 5432:localhost:5432 \
-o 'ProxyCommand=ssh -W %h:%p pub1.example.org' \
devel.example.org
As a follow up here is a method that should work for older versions of ssh:
ssh -L
On 10/07/12 01:10 PM, Chris Davies wrote:
Gary Dalegaryd...@rogers.com wrote:
Thanks again Chris. If I understand your model correctly, the
remote_router is the ssh server and not the actual router that merely
forwards port 22 to the ssh server.
Yes. It's only now clear to me that the router
Gary Dalegaryd...@rogers.com wrote:
I can connect to every workstation in a remote office using:
ssh -L 5902:remote workstation's local IP:5900remote router's
public IP
xtightvncviewer -encodings tight localhost:5902
However, there is one workstation [...]
The ssh session also shows this
On 07/10/2012 01:41 AM, Chris Davies wrote:
Gary Dalegaryd...@rogers.com wrote:
I can connect to every workstation in a remote office using:
ssh -L 5902:remote workstation's local IP:5900remote router's
public IP
xtightvncviewer -encodings tight localhost:5902
However, there is one workstation
On 10/07/12 04:41 AM, Chris Davies wrote:
Gary Dalegaryd...@rogers.com wrote:
I can connect to every workstation in a remote office using:
ssh -L 5902:remote workstation's local IP:5900remote router's
public IP
xtightvncviewer -encodings tight localhost:5902
However, there is one workstation
Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com wrote:
Thanks again Chris. If I understand your model correctly, the
remote_router is the ssh server and not the actual router that merely
forwards port 22 to the ssh server.
Yes. It's only now clear to me that the router isn't the ssh server. But
for the
Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com wrote:
I can connect to every workstation in a remote office using:
ssh -L 5902:remote workstation's local IP:5900 remote router's
public IP
xtightvncviewer -encodings tight localhost:5902
However, there is one workstation [...]
The ssh session also shows this
I'm trying to connect to and the laptop (when I plugged it
into their network). The local forwarding would be handled on the subnet
so that if it worked for one station, shouldn't it work for all?
I don't see how the router would enter into it. It just passes the ssh
tunnel to the ssh server
I'm not having this problem on all machines. I can connect to every
workstation in a remote office using:
ssh -L 5902:remote workstation's local IP:5900 remote router's
public IP
then in another terminal:
xtightvncviewer -encodings tight localhost:5902
However, there is one workstation
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:56:01 +0100
Laurence Hurst l.a.hu...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
[...]
ssh -L 192.168.0.1:3360:localhost:3306 A
where '192.168.0.1' is the ip address you want to bind to (i.e. the ip
address of eth0, or whichever interface you want to use). The same
method applies if
Dear list,
I have made a successful ssh tunnel between two pcs A and B.
A is running mysql and B have the tunnel with A , so that B
can access that remote mysql with its local port 3360. Everything
is fine..
But B is bind the port with localhost only, hence no one can access
B's 3360 port
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:37:30PM +0100, J. Bakshi wrote:
Dear list,
I have made a successful ssh tunnel between two pcs A and B.
A is running mysql and B have the tunnel with A , so that B
can access that remote mysql with its local port 3360. Everything
is fine..
But B is bind
On 27/06/2012 15:37, J. Bakshi wrote:
Dear list,
I have made a successful ssh tunnel between two pcs A and B.
A is running mysql and B have the tunnel with A , so that B
can access that remote mysql with its local port 3360. Everything
is fine..
But B is bind the port with localhost only
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 18:29 -0700, vicky mhe wrote:
ssh -l vicky -L :192.168.21.2:22 118.97.247.242 18.97.xx.xx
password:
Segmentation fault
ssh without forwarding is working on both hosts?
in my syslog/messeges
ernel: [ 112.994103] ssh[2487]: segfault at b7e62000 ip b75d20cd sp
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:29:01 -0700, vicky mhe wrote:
(please, avoid using html)
Dear debian
i use ssh for tunnel this is my command
ssh -l vicky -L :192.168.21.2:22 118.97.247.242 18.97.xx.xx
password:
Segmentation fault
in my syslog/messeges
ernel: [ 112.994103] ssh[2487]:
Dear debian
i use ssh for tunnel this is my command
ssh -l vicky -L :192.168.21.2:22 118.97.247.242 18.97.xx.xx
password:
Segmentation fault
in my syslog/messeges
ernel: [ 112.994103] ssh[2487]: segfault at b7e62000 ip b75d20cd sp bfbf5b3c
error 4 in
2012/3/22 vicky mhe ghie...@yahoo.com:
Dear debian
i use ssh for tunnel this is my command
ssh -l vicky -L :192.168.21.2:22 118.97.247.242 18.97.xx.xx
password:
Segmentation fault
in my syslog/messeges
ernel: [ 112.994103] ssh[2487]: segfault at b7e62000 ip b75d20cd sp
bfbf5b3c
Mitchell Laks wrote:
On 14:38 Fri 03 Oct , Celejar wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:02:22 -0400
There are several apt proxies available:
apt-cacher
apt-cacher-ng
apt-proxy
approx
[I use approx; various readers of this list have their own preferences.]
Set up one of them on A, configure
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 04:02:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Run squid on A and let others access it. You need to set http_proxy
environment variable or use apt.conf setting for all A,B,C. Then you
save bandwidth.
Or use apt-cache.
You must have meant apt-cacher.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:02:22PM -0400, Mitchell Laks wrote:
Now I know how to browse the internet on B-D by creating a ssh tunnel
to A and utilizing the Iceweasel Browser settings to use a local Socks
proxy.
This is untested, but if you change your sources.list to include
something like
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Run squid on A and let others access it. You need to set http_proxy
environment variable or use apt.conf setting for all A,B,C. Then you
save bandwidth.
Or use apt-cache.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who can decide what they dream
PGP Key: 1FC01004
by creating a ssh tunnel to A and utilizing the Iceweasel Browser settings
to use a
local Socks proxy.
Can I do something similar with apt-get so that I can apt-get update and
apt-get upgrade
over ssh without
physically moving the machines B-D to the private network 192.168.4.x
to browse the internet on B-D
by creating a ssh tunnel to A and utilizing the Iceweasel Browser settings
to use a
local Socks proxy.
Yes.
Can I do something similar with apt-get so that I can apt-get update and
apt-get upgrade
over ssh without
physically moving the machines B-D
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:01:55 -0400
Mitchell Laks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14:38 Fri 03 Oct , Celejar wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:02:22 -0400
There are several apt proxies available:
apt-cacher
apt-cacher-ng
apt-proxy
approx
[I use approx; various readers of this
a private network with
machine A
192.168.4.x, and getting internet access via NAT through A.
Now machines B-D no longer live on the private network but can ssh into machine
A.
Now I know how to browse the internet on B-D
by creating a ssh tunnel to A and utilizing the Iceweasel Browser
the internet on B-D
by creating a ssh tunnel to A and utilizing the Iceweasel Browser settings
to use a
local Socks proxy.
Can I do something similar with apt-get so that I can apt-get update and
apt-get upgrade
over ssh without
physically moving the machines B-D to the private network
On 14:38 Fri 03 Oct , Celejar wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:02:22 -0400
There are several apt proxies available:
apt-cacher
apt-cacher-ng
apt-proxy
approx
[I use approx; various readers of this list have their own preferences.]
Set up one of them on A, configure B-D's sources
LAN. This works with no problem.
Oberon MUA at home ==LAN== exim4 at home ==WAN== ISP
This is the trial configuration for sending mail from a
remote location, most commonly from work.
Remote Oberon MUA ==ssh tunnel== exim4 at home ==WAN== ISP
It fails. exim4 appears to reject the ssh
at home ==WAN== ISP
This is the trial configuration for sending mail from a
remote location, most commonly from work.
Remote Oberon MUA ==ssh tunnel== exim4 at home ==WAN== ISP
It fails. exim4 appears to reject the ssh connection
for relaying.
Someone please tell me how to coerce exim4
Moin
Ich versuche mich gerade an ssh-Tunneln.
Ausgangspunkt:
- host1 hat ssh-Verbindung zu host2
- host2 hat ssh-Verbindung zu host3
- host2 fungiert nicht als Router.
Nin versuche ich, mir auf einen ssh-Tunnel von host2 nach host3 zu
bauen, um mir das Leben, speziell mit scp etwas zu
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0200, Rüdiger Noack wrote:
Ich versuche mich gerade an ssh-Tunneln.
Ausgangspunkt:
- host1 hat ssh-Verbindung zu host2
- host2 hat ssh-Verbindung zu host3
- host2 fungiert nicht als Router.
Nin versuche ich, mir auf einen ssh-Tunnel von host2 nach
Helmut Franke schrieb:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:44:45AM +0200, Rüdiger Noack wrote:
Ausgangspunkt:
- host1 hat ssh-Verbindung zu host2
- host2 hat ssh-Verbindung zu host3
- host2 fungiert nicht als Router.
host1 $ ssh -g -L 2061:host3:22 host2
Es ist doch alles richtig.
Fast, danke
Rüdiger Noack:
Fast, danke für deine Erklärung. Ich hatte gedacht, ich könnte den
Tunnel im Hintergrund aufbauen.
Geht doch: ssh -N -f -L ...
J.
--
Driving behind lorries carrying hazardous chemicals makes me wish for a
simpler life.
[Agree] [Disagree]
Hi all,
I wish to be able to print to printers on a remote cups server from
gnome applications.
I figured I could just create an ssh tunnel like this:
$ ssh -L 1631:localhost:631 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
then set the cups server to localhost:1631 in /etc/cups/client.conf
But no printers appear
On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 20:55 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:58:45PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
You could try `ssh -L 25:localhost:25 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course, that requires that you be root. If that will not work, use
port 2525 on the first part of the
the list :-(
This has given me enough incentive to look into solutions that would let
me send emails without going through they flakey mail servers at work.
What I was considering was a setup with a local postfix relaying email
over an SSH tunnel to a server.
Does anyone any good resource
without going through they flakey mail servers at work.
What I was considering was a setup with a local postfix relaying email
over an SSH tunnel to a server.
Does anyone any good resource for this (besides Google, please :-)?
/M
--
Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4
that would let
me send emails without going through they flakey mail servers at work.
What I was considering was a setup with a local postfix relaying email
over an SSH tunnel to a server.
Does anyone any good resource for this (besides Google, please :-)?
/M
You could try `ssh -L 25
On 5/23/05, Josh Rehman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/05, André Carezia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Look for AllowTcpForwarding in /etc/ssh/sshd_config.
I don't have permission to read that file - I'll contact the sysadmin. Thanks.
Turns out that my hosting service has dissallowed usage of
Josh Rehman wrote:
On 5/22/05, *André Carezia* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ssh -R 8080:localhost:80 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My apologies, I should have mentioned that that was what I tried. Here
is the result:
external$ telnet localhost 8080
You can't connect
Josh Rehman a écrit :
On 5/22/05, *André Carezia* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ssh -R 8080:localhost:80 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My apologies, I should have mentioned that that was what I tried. Here
is the result:
external$ telnet localhost 8080
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Josh Rehman wrote:
[...]
Does mod_proxy have some sort of priveledged access to ssh tunnels?
Are you saying that my simple telnet test cannot work ever?
Please send your replies to the list.
internal[start server on 8080]
internal[make sure server is listening]
internalssh -R
On 5/23/05, André Carezia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Rehman wrote: [...] Does mod_proxy have some sort of priveledged access to ssh tunnels? Are you saying that my simple telnet test cannot work ever?Please send your replies to the list.
Of course. Gmail Reply does not work correctly with this
Josh Rehman wrote:
[...]
I agree. However I'm not sure how to look deeper into my providers
configuration. I'm thinking that some usage of either ps or netstat
could tell me what's going on.
No. Look for AllowTcpForwarding in /etc/ssh/sshd_config.
--
André Carezia
Eng. de Telecomunicações
On 5/23/05, André Carezia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Look for AllowTcpForwarding in /etc/ssh/sshd_config.
I don't have permission to read that file - I'll contact the sysadmin. Thanks.
I would like to expose a web server running on a personal laptop
elegantly and securely. This laptop is not always connected at the
same point, so a static IP will not do. I am also familiar with
dynamic dns however my laptop will sometimes be behind firewalls over
which I have no control.
A
Josh Rehman wrote:
A solution which I believe is quite elegant involves ssh'ing from the
laptop to my external, statically IP'd host. I would then need to
notify the externally running httpd that a tunnel is now available,
and then use something like the ProxyPass directive to seemlessly
forward
On 5/22/05, André Carezia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ssh -R 8080:localhost:80 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My apologies, I should have mentioned that that was what I tried. Here is the result:
external$ telnet localhost 8080
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused
I also tried other ports but without success.-- It seemed to them that they did little but eat and drink and rest, and walk among the trees; and it was enough.- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Mirror of Galadriel
Hallo,
ich versuche vergeblich über einen SSH-Tunnel eine ssh-Connection mit
X11Forwarding zu einem anderen Rechner aufzumachen, der nur ssh zuläßt:
Auf dem Zielrechner sieht die ssh-Config so aus:
~:1 grep -v '#' /etc/ssh/sshd_config | sort -u
HostKey /etc/ssh/ssh_host_dsa_key
HostKey /etc
SSH-Tunnel wählen, wenn über das
Internet kopiert wird (und kein VPN da ist). Wichtig ist auch,
dass der Betrieb automatisiert verläuft. Also fallen alle
Lösungen weg, die einen Benutzereingriff erfordern.
Außerdem ist eine Bedingung, dass der Backup-Server die
*Daten vom Windows-Rechner holt* und
mig genom ssh tunneln.
Hur har du kommit fram till att en sådan extraregel behövs? Trafiken
till webbservern borde komma antingen från 5.6.7.8, 127.0.0.1 eller
192.168.10.1 (lite beroende på slumpen och hur du sätter upp din
ssh-tunnel, dvs vad du anger för namn/adress med -L).
/Pontus
Thomas Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jag kom fram till genom följande;
sitter jag bakom brandväggen går det utmärkt att accessa sidan via ssh
tunnel, men sitter jag utanför brandväggen så går det inte. Om jag
däremot i mitt iptables script uttryckligen tillåter t.ex 1.2.3.4 att
accessa
PROTECTED] writes:
Jag kom fram till genom följande;
sitter jag bakom brandväggen går det utmärkt att accessa sidan via ssh
tunnel, men sitter jag utanför brandväggen så går det inte. Om jag
däremot i mitt iptables script uttryckligen tillåter t.ex 1.2.3.4 att
accessa port x dvs dport x ja då går
Thomas Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kommandoraden är ssh -i identititet -L 8080:webserver.com:4
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ser ju okej ut.
Jag har ingen tcpdump att skicka just nu, men jag har kontrollerat det
hela och tunneln är etablerad. Om jag t.ex befinner mig på en plats
som använder
sidan via ssh
tunnel, men sitter jag utanf?r brandv?ggen s? g?r det inte. Om jag
d?remot i mitt iptables script uttryckligen till?ter t.ex 1.2.3.4 att
accessa port x dvs dport x ja d? g?r det bra utanf?r brandv?ggen.
Det l?ter ju verkligen inte som att du anv?nder tunneln is?fall. Om du
k?r tcpdump
Thomas Nyman skrev:
Jag skall kolla lite mer och även testa dina förslag...men -g växeln har
väl ingen inverkan på problemet.
Det stämmer. Det enda som -g tillför är att andra också kan komma in i
tunneln och inte bara din egen laptop.
En fråga bara - varför tycker du 127.0.0.1 är bättre än
förfrågan via en
ssh tunnel så anges sourceport fortfarande men det externa ipnumret.
Först trodde jag att när man gick via en ssh tunnel så blev den
vidarebefordrat förfrågan en lokal förfrågan dvs att det skedde en
omvandling på sshd men där misstog jag mig.
Jag förstår inte riktigt vad du menar
.
Brandväggen tillåter dock inte att externa ipnummer kopplar upp sig mot
vare sig den aktuella porten eller mot 192.168.1.1.
Det är också de som är hela poängen..min tanke är att man bara ska
kunna komma åt den här sidan genom en krypterad ssh tunnel. Mitt
problem är (såvitt jag kan lista ut
Hi all,
I'm using a ssh tunnel between my local smtp server and the one running on
my mail server to receive my mail. This setup has worked relly well for me
in the past months and has the advantage that I do not have to
periodically check for new mail, but get it delivered directly to me.
I
Dirk Lipinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ssh -L 6668:irc.irgendwo.de:6668 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IRC-Server im IRC-Client ist dann localhost:6668
Alternativ kann man auf $server_mit_ssh-zugang auch direkt einen
IRC-Client (irssi) laufen lassen. Damit verstösst man dann
wahrscheinlich nichtmal gegen
On Friday 21 November 2003 12:01, Serge Gebhardt wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:33:17 +0100
Frank Habermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moin Frank,
Moin rundum,
[...]
Wenn du ssh Zugang zu einer externen Maschine hast, kann du einfach
durch diese Tunneln. Folgendes Szenario:
hallo liste!
ich hänge hier hinter ner firewall mit meinem rechner. alle ports bis auf ein paar wie
http oder ssh sind frei. der rest ist gesperrt. ich würde aber gerne ins irc kommen.
lässt sich das mit einem sshtunnel hinbekommen so das ich über den port 22 ins netz
komme? oder gibts da
hallo liste!
Hi :)
ich hänge hier hinter ner firewall mit meinem rechner. alle ports
bis auf ein paar wie http oder ssh sind frei. der rest ist
gesperrt. ich würde aber gerne ins irc kommen. lässt sich das mit
einem sshtunnel hinbekommen so das ich über den port 22 ins netz
komme? oder
am 21.11.2003, um 9:33:17 +0100 mailte Frank Habermann folgendes:
hallo liste!
ich hänge hier hinter ner firewall mit meinem rechner. alle ports bis
auf ein paar wie http oder ssh sind frei. der rest ist gesperrt. ich
würde aber gerne ins irc kommen. lässt sich das mit einem sshtunnel
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:33:17 +0100
Frank Habermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moin Frank,
ich hänge hier hinter ner firewall mit meinem rechner. alle ports bis
auf ein paar wie http oder ssh sind frei. der rest ist gesperrt. ich
würde aber gerne ins irc kommen. lässt sich das mit einem
hallo
das problem ist ich habe leider keinen externen server. kann ich das nicht
irgendwie einfach von lokal machen?
cui
--
Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ):
http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/
Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mit dem
hallo
Hi.
das problem ist ich habe leider keinen externen server. kann ich
das nicht
irgendwie einfach von lokal machen?
Du kannst das NICHT lokal mache. Der Tunnelendpunkt muss ja irgendwo
hinzeigen/enden. Ein IRC Server wird sich dir selten als TunnelEndPoint
anbieten (Was im übrigen dann
Am Freitag, 21. November 2003 12:51 schrieb Frank Habermann:
hallo
das problem ist ich habe leider keinen externen server. kann ich das nicht
irgendwie einfach von lokal machen?
ssh -L 6668:irc.irgendwo.de:6668 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IRC-Server im IRC-Client ist dann localhost:6668
mfg
Dirk
--
Hallo Frank,
Frank Habermann, 21.11.2003 (d.m.y):
ich hänge hier hinter ner firewall mit meinem rechner. alle ports bis
auf ein paar wie http oder ssh sind frei. der rest ist gesperrt. ich
würde aber gerne ins irc kommen. lässt sich das mit einem sshtunnel
hinbekommen so das ich über den
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 01:30, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Oliver Elphick wrote:
...
What I am trying to do is to use ssh tunnelling to go direct to one of
the machines on the remote private network, because I need to be able to
run X programs from that machine on my own display.
...
I do this
Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 01:30, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Oliver Elphick wrote:
...
What I am trying to do is to use ssh tunnelling to go direct to one of
the machines on the remote private network, because I need to be able to
run X programs from that machine on my own display.
I wonder if anyone can help me work out how to do this, please:
I have two private networks (192.168.1.0/24) each with a firewall
machine connecting through ADSL to the Internet. Each private network
can reach the Internet through the firewall (using NAT); therefore no
machine except the
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
