Can anyone tell me why I have about a hundred of these
Nov 16 08:00:03 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= rhost=222.135.146.45
Nov 16 08:00:06 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser=
On Thursday 16 November 2006 20:29, Michael Sullivan wrote:
Can anyone tell me why I have about a hundred of these
Nov 16 08:00:03 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser= rhost=222.135.146.45
Nov 16 08:00:06 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:09 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 16 November 2006 20:29, Michael Sullivan wrote:
Can anyone tell me why I have about a hundred of these
Nov 16 08:00:03 bullet ftp(pam_unix)[2045]: authentication failure;
logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty= ruser=
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:53:55 -0500 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 05 October 2006 14:44, Hans-Werner Hilse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
[...]
Note that the first 29 bits are all equal.
In addition, the first 30 bits
On Friday 06 October 2006 03:13, Hans-Werner Hilse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:53:55 -0500 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it would be sufficient to
specify a /29 netmask (255.255.255.248).
However, we
On Friday 6 October 2006 14:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Anycast is virtually unused anywhere. I'd imagine it could be used in
some crazy layer 3 clustering solution, but I've never actually seen
it used.
Actually, ipv6 uses anycasts extensively.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 06 October 2006 08:05, Etaoin Shrdlu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
On Friday 6 October 2006 14:32, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Anycast is virtually unused anywhere. I'd imagine it could be used in
some crazy layer 3 clustering solution
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:57 -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
Michael Sullivan wrote:
I'm having a problem with ipkungfu on one of my boxes. According to the
log files, it's running, but it doesn't seem to be firewall-ing. It's
not working on 192.168.1.2. Here's nmap output from 192.168.1.3:
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:07:49 -0500 Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACCEPT all -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywherestate NEW
[...]
And I can still detect all those ports open from nmap on another
machine.
Yep. That's how it should be according to your iptables
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:07:49 -0500 Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACCEPT all -- 192.168.1.0/24 anywherestate NEW
[...]
And I can still detect all those ports open from nmap on another
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:45:57 -0500
Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
Yep. That's how it should be according to your iptables dump. I never
fighted with ipkungfu, but I think the LOCAL_NET configuration opens
the door
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 19:33 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:45:57 -0500
Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:22 +0200, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
Yep. That's how it should be according to your iptables dump. I never
fighted with
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:59:06 -0500
Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if I wanted 70.234.122.249, 70.234.122.250, and 70.234.122.251 as
the network. What would the syntax for those three be? I've never been
able to figure out what the 127.0.0.1/8 syntax means...
That slash
On Thursday 05 October 2006 14:44, Hans-Werner Hilse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] OT - ipkungfu not':
Concerning the IPs you've mentioned, that looks like
70.234.122.249 = 01000110.11101010.0010.1001
70.234.122.250 = 01000110.11101010.0010.1010
I'm having a problem with ipkungfu on one of my boxes. According to the
log files, it's running, but it doesn't seem to be firewall-ing. It's
not working on 192.168.1.2. Here's nmap output from 192.168.1.3:
camille ~ # nmap -sT -PT 192.168.1.2
Starting Nmap 4.01 (
Michael Sullivan wrote:
I'm having a problem with ipkungfu on one of my boxes. According to the
log files, it's running, but it doesn't seem to be firewall-ing. It's
not working on 192.168.1.2. Here's nmap output from 192.168.1.3:
camille ~ # nmap -sT -PT 192.168.1.2
Starting Nmap 4.01 (
I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed the
instructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it gave me a
string of errors, that I'm not sure how to fix:
bullet ipkungfu # ipkungfu
Checking configuration...
FATAL: Module ip_tables not found.
iptables v1.3.4: can't
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box.I followed theinstructions in the README file.When I went to start it, it gave me astring of errors, that I'm not sure how to fix:bullet ipkungfu # ipkungfu
Checking configuration...FATAL: Module
Michael Sullivan schreef:
I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed the
instructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it gave me
a string of errors, that I'm not sure how to fix:
bullet ipkungfu # ipkungfu Checking configuration... FATAL: Module
ip_tables
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:30 -0500, Andrew Frink wrote:
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box. I followed
the
instructions in the README file. When I went to start it, it
gave me a
On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:30 -0500, Andrew Frink wrote: On 1/11/06, Michael Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to install ipkungfoo on my server box.I followed
the instructions in the README file.When I went to start it, it gave me a
21 matches
Mail list logo
