Search Results

Search found 11687 results on 468 pages for 'ex networking guy'.

Page 166/468 | < Previous Page | 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173  | Next Page >

• Wireshark does not see interfaces (winXP)

  - by bua

  Short story: Wireshark is working....on my winXP-32b ... usage .... Long long time later Wireshark does not work It can't find any usefull interface (just VPN) ipconfig /all Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Dell Wireless 1490 Dual Band WLAN Mini-Card Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : SOME VALID MAC Ethernet adapter eth0: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : xxxx Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Broadcom 440x 10/100 Integrated Controller Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : SOME VALID MAC Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.12.68 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168..... ..... Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Fortinet virtual adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : SOME VALID MAC Following steps didn't help: Several Wireshark re-installation Several LIBPCAP re installation SP3 for winXP Any ideas welcome.

  Read the article

• Redirection of outbound UDP port.

  - by pboin

  For my residential service, I changed ISPs to Zoom/Armstrong. Just after that, my NTP daemons stopped working. I dug deep and diagnosed the problem: Unprivileged ports are getting out. When i run 'ntpdate' for example, I go out on a high, unprivleged port, and get a response on UDP 123. That's fine. The 'ntpd' daemon though, expects to go out on 123 and get its reply there as well. This must be a common problem, because it's directly addressed in the NTP troubleshooting guide. Just to see what would happen, I wrote a detailed email to the general support address at Armstrong. They replied almost immediately with a complete technical answer! They have everything <1024 blocked, except for a few ports to support outbound VPN. So, the question: Can I use IPtables to essentially re-write my outbound UDP 123 up to 2123 or something like that? If I do, does there need to be a corresponding 2123-123 rule to translate the reply? This seems like NAT, but with ports, not addresses. I tried, but can't seem to get iptables to do what I want. I'm not sure if it's my lack of skill, or if I'm trying the wrong solution. True, I could run ntpdate from cron, but that loses all of the adjustment smarts of NTP.

  Read the article

• How to elegantly selectively exclude FreeBSD network traffic from OpenVPN interface by port

  - by Polygonica

  inexperienced sysadmin here. I'm planning on running a net daemon inside a FreeBSD jail through OpenVPN, but want to be able to SSH directly into the jail and use the daemon's web interface daemon without going through the VPN. As I understand it, an OpenVPN tunnel is normally set up as a default virtual internet interface, and so incoming traffic will go out on the OpenVPN interface by default (which is problematic, as this incurs latency). I thought "well, obviously, since all of this traffic is leaving on a handful of ports, I'll just redirect those to the non-VPN gateway." I've tried to look for solutions, but almost all of them involve iptables instead of ipfw (which is default for FreeBSD) and solve slightly different problems. And alternate solutions like using multiple default routes to ensure that incoming traffic on any interface is always sent out on the same interface seem far-reaching and require deep knowledge of all tools involved. Is there an elegant way of ensuring that traffic leaving on specific ports exits on a specified non-default interface using ipfw?

  Read the article

• How do I prevent internet access to a group of computers on my network?

  - by Kevin Boyd

  Well I have the following setup... Computer A , B and C are networked.... Computer A is connected to the internet, computer B and C are not setup for internet access currently but I guess its possible with some kind of setting they would eventually be able to access the internet and this is what I would like to prevent. In summary only A should have internet access while A and B and C should still be on intranet. Is this kind of config possible?, what kind of software or setup or tools would I need to achive this?

  Read the article

• Is this iptables NAT exploitable from the external side?

  - by Karma Fusebox

  Could you please have a short look on this simple iptables/NAT-Setup, I believe it has a fairly serious security issue (due to being too simple). On this network there is one internet-connected machine (running Debian Squeeze/2.6.32-5 with iptables 1.4.8) acting as NAT/Gateway for the handful of clients in 192.168/24. The machine has two NICs: eth0: internet-faced eth1: LAN-faced, 192.168.0.1, the default GW for 192.168/24 Routing table is two-NICs-default without manual changes: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 (externalNet) 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 (externalGW) 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 The NAT is then enabled only and merely by these actions, there are no more iptables rules: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # (all iptables policies are ACCEPT) This does the job, but I miss several things here which I believe could be a security issue: there is no restriction about allowed source interfaces or source networks at all there is no firewalling part such as: (set policies to DROP) /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT And thus, the questions of my sleepless nights are: Is this NAT-service available to anyone in the world who sets this machine as his default gateway? I'd say yes it is, because there is nothing indicating that an incoming external connection (via eth0) should be handled any different than an incoming internal connection (via eth1) as long as the output-interface is eth0 - and routing-wise that holds true for both external und internal clients that want to access the internet. So if I am right, anyone could use this machine as open proxy by having his packets NATted here. So please tell me if that's right or why it is not. As a "hotfix" I have added a "-s 192.168.0.0/24" option to the NAT-starting command. I would like to know if not using this option was indeed a security issue or just irrelevant thanks to some mechanism I am not aware of. As the policies are all ACCEPT, there is currently no restriction on forwarding eth1 to eth0 (internal to external). But what are the effective implications of currently NOT having the restriction that only RELATED and ESTABLISHED states are forwarded from eth0 to eth1 (external to internal)? In other words, should I rather change the policies to DROP and apply the two "firewalling" rules I mentioned above or is the lack of them not affecting security? Thanks for clarification!

  Read the article

• PHP application failed to connect after a network plugged back in

  - by tntu

  My data-center appears to have had some issues with their network and thus my server has suffered from on an off network connectivity for about an hour. After the connection has been completely re-established my code still kept reporting the same issue over and over until I have restarted the service. The code is a simple PHP code that loops forever checking the Apple feed-back server and then sleeps for a few minutes and then it begins all over again. Now I understand the error being generated if the network is down but once it got back up why did it continue until I have restarted the code? Does PHP have something that needs to be re-initialized or something?? Messges log: Dec 20 08:57:22 server kernel: r8169: eth0: link down Dec 20 08:57:28 server kernel: r8169 0000:06:00.0: eth0: link up Dec 20 08:57:29 server kernel: r8169: eth0: link down Dec 20 08:57:33 server kernel: r8169 0000:06:00.0: eth0: link up Dec 20 08:57:33 server kernel: r8169: eth0: link down Dec 20 08:57:37 server kernel: r8169 0000:06:00.0: eth0: link up Dec 20 08:57:38 server kernel: r8169: eth0: link down Dec 20 08:57:44 server kernel: r8169 0000:06:00.0: eth0: link up Dec 20 08:57:44 server kernel: r8169: eth0: link down Dec 20 08:57:52 server kernel: r8169 0000:06:00.0: eth0: link up Dec 20 08:57:52 server kernel: r8169: eth0: link down Dec 20 09:10:58 server kernel: r8169 0000:06:00.0: eth0: link up PHP Error: PHP Warning: stream_socket_client(): php_network_getaddresses: getaddrinfo failed: Name or service not known in /home/push/feedback.php on line 36 Code Line 36: $apns = stream_socket_client('ssl://feedback.sandbox.push.apple.com:2196', $errcode, $errstr, 60, STREAM_CLIENT_CONNECT, $stream_context);

  Read the article

• Reliable router with good VPN and WAN Throughput [closed]

  - by Asdande

  I have 2 cisco rv180 VPN router. These routers are giving me lots of problems. The webpages wont load correctly, slow response to load webpages plus other many issues. I have several cases pending with cisco. I give up on these routers. I would like to know if you guys can recommend me a reliable router for our 3 branches (NY - main, SC and FL). In NY- main office, we have 55 users. In SC branch, 6 users. In Florida we only have 1 (will grow soon). I need a router capable of support: 3 VPNs Site-to-Site connection VPN throughput of at least 40-50 Mbps WAN throughput at least 100 Mpbs and up PPTP Server for at least 5 PPTP users Web filtering - all users need access to internet Good Firewall Port forwarding for FTP Server - able to show the public IPs of FTP users (rv180 cannot do that, just shows me router's LAN interface IP, opened a case with cisco, now escaleted to level 2, still no answer or workaround) Dual WAN ports for balance or backup internet. Gigabit WAN/LAN ports Price between $400-$500 range. I was thinking on the TP-LINK TL-ER6120 or TL-ER6020 according to the review on smallnetbuilder.com http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/lanwan/lanwan-reviews/31983-tp-link-tl-er6020-safestream-gigabit-dual-wan-vpn-router-reviewed but I don't want to make another mistake as I did when I bought the cisco RV180. Thank you in advance,

  Read the article

• Wifi channel interference

  - by artfulrobot

  In my neighbourhood there are: 11 wifi signals on channel 1 2 wifi signals on channel 4 (including mine at the mo) 8 on channel 6 6 on channel 11 According to the diagram on wikipedia Mine on channel 4 will suffer interference from channel 1 and channel 6, so a total of 20 other networks(!). So would I be better to join channel 11, even though my network is then in direct competition with the 6 others? I suppose the question is: what's worse: direct interference (meaning that on the same channel) from 6 or fringe interference from many more networks?

  Read the article

• Remote access to a KVM Ubuntu virtual server

  - by Lee

  I've just setup an ubuntu virtual server and everything seems to be working fine. I used KVM to get it working with a bridged network. I've given the virtual server a static ip address on my network. I don't seem to be able to connect to the virtual machine though from outside my network. If I'm on my own network it all works fine, I can ping the ip and connect to it. The virtual server can ping other machines and sites on the internet. I changed the port forwarding rules on my router to forward any connections on a specific port to the virtual server ip address thinking that was the problem, but it was still the same. Is there something I'm missing here which is blocking outside connections to the virtual machine? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Router intermittently failing

  - by nomen

  My old Asus router died a few weeks ago, so I thought I'd set up my Debian box to deal with routing my home network. I have a few complications, but I adapted my configuration from a previously working configuration, and I don't see why I am having intermittent problems. But I am having them! Every so often, my SSH connections to the router (and to the Xen virtual machines hosted by the router) just drop. I am unable to use the router's dns server. I can't ping the router. Etc. All of these things work most of the time, but break down intermittently, for a few minutes at a time. (I can provide more details, but I'm not sure what will be helpful) /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # Gigabit ethernet, internal network auto eth0 allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet manual # USB ethernet, internet auto eth1 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth1 inet dhcp # Xen Bridge auto xlan0 iface xlan0 inet static bridge_ports eth0 address 10.47.94.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 As I understand it, this is sufficient to create the network interfaces, and even do some switching between Xen hosts and my eth0 interface. I installed and configured Shorewall to manage routing between the bridge and my internet-facing interface: /etc/shorewall/zones fw firewall net ipv4 lan ipv4 /etc/shorewall/interfaces net eth1 detect dhcp,tcpflags,nosmurfs,routefilter,logmartians lan xlan0 detect dhcp,tcpflags,nosmurfs,routefilter,logmartians,routeback,bridge /etc/shorewall/policy net all DROP info fw net ACCEPT info all all REJECT info /etc/shorewall/rules DNS(ACCEPT) fw net DNS(ACCEPT) lan fw Ping(ACCEPT) lan fw ... and so on, these all work, when the router is accepting traffic at all. /etc/shorewall/masq eth1 10.47.94.0/24 Also, the router is currently "working", and I checked on a problematic client: arp infrastructure infrastructure.mydomain (10.47.94.1) at 0:23:54:bb:7d:ce on en0 ifscope [ethernet] I tried it when the router was down, and I (eventually) got the same response. It took about 30 seconds to return, though.

  Read the article

• Logical and Physical network topologies

  - by t.thielemans

  I'm trying to understand the difference between logical and physical topologies but it's a bit confusing to me. Cisco states these as logical topologies, but from my understanding these should be physical topologies? This is what I understand so far: Physical PtP: desktop directly connected to a desktop Multiaccess: several desktops connected to a medium with access to each other (Cisco Ring image, how should I view this in a live situation?) Ring: several desktops directly connected to each other creating a loop? Logical PtP: two desktops (virtually) connected to each other with intermediairy devices in between MultiAccess: (don't have a clue) Ring: (don't have a clue) Could anyone help me out and perhaps explain the difference a bit more detailed? Online I can't find any useful topics. I am using the Cisco Network Fundamentals book.

  Read the article

• NAT and NGINX on the same server

  - by Morten

  I'm setting up a VPC cluster for my collaborative todo list application www.getdoneapp.com. To have my servers on the private network I need a NAT server so my servers on the private network can connect to the internet to receive updates and what not. The NAT server will consume an elastic IP address, so I'm wondering if I can just have that NAT server run nginx to direct traffic to my internal servers for HTTP. So the question is, is it a bad idea to run NGINX and NAT on the same server, or should I go for consuming 2 elastic IP addresses?

  Read the article

• TCP: Treason uncloaked!

  - by hurikhan77

  On one linux server (Gentoo hardened), we are experiencing bursts of the following messages in dmesg from time to time: TCP: Treason uncloaked! Peer xx.xx.xxx.xxx:65039/80 shrinks window 4094157295:4094160199. Repaired. Is there anything we should take care of or is this normal?

  Read the article

• ftp server over internet using different port

  - by ???? ????

  I want to make my ftp server over the internet i made it on Debian linux computer and i changed the port of it to 201 my local ip is 192.168.1.3 so i can access it from any computer on my network through ftp :// mylocalip:201 it appear to me the login page i login with my linux user and can see the files on my ftp server to make it public i make port mapping on my router for port 201 when i try ftp :// mypublicip:201 it give me the login page and when i entered the login data it is loading infinity without open my ftp server files when i made it over default port 21 it works fine. can any one tell me what is the problem here?

  Read the article

• windows cache not working as it should?

  - by piotrektt

  I run windows 2012 server with data center. The setup is with 60GB of RAM. I have one file shared on VHD and when I copy this file locally the RAM cache is all used up but when multiple computers connect to the share it the cache is not used. The network is 8Gb. The whole network is around 200 computers that need to read that one file but on this setup only 10 connection kills the server. Is there any way to check what is going on? What other solution can I use to manage cache in windows?

  Read the article

• Basic connectivity issues between Win 7 and XP mixed wired/wireless network.

  - by Pulse

  Setup: Windows 7 x64 Ultimate desktop hard wired to Asus WL500gp router (WL500gpv2-1.9.2.7-d-r1445 firmware) Several Bridged VirtualBox VM's running XP, 7, ubuntu server 10.04, Mint 9 and SuSE 11.2 Win XP Pro SP3 notebook with D-Link Airplus wireless network card. No firewall or other security software currently running on either platform (at least for the duration of the test) Situation: Router is acting DHCP server Clients are receiving correct addresses and additional parameters Internet connectivity is available from all clients Windows 7 sharing is set to Network type = work (not home group) NetBT is disabled on all clients using smb over TCP What I can do: I can ping the router and internet addresses from the wireless XP notebook I can ping the Win 7 desktop and any VM from the XP wireless notebook I can ping all devices from the router All VM's and 7 can ping each other and the router as well as Internet addresses What I can't do: I cannot ping the XP wireless notebook from either The Win 7 desktop or the VM's it alwats returns a destination host unreachable. Tracert resolves the name or the XP notebook but also returns a destination host unreachable. From the above it would seem that something is blocking connectivity in a single direction (from the Win 7 box to the Win XP notebook) only but the router can ping the XP notebook. Some fresh input would be most welcome, as this is beginning to drive me batty. Thanks

  Read the article

• G4 server running slow

  - by Abby Kach

  I have HP proliant ML 350 servers. We have 8 remote locations where users connect and log on to our server through DYNDNS to access our company ERP's to conduct day to day work. The base of our company ERP's is oracle for which we have a separate server.Now the problem is day by day the load on the server is increasing and the speed is getting slower and slower and users are facing a lot of issues . so I are planning to implement Sonic wall VPN. I conducted a demo of sonic wall but it was slower than the current speed of dyndns. the configuration of my server is as follows :- Linux HP ProLiant 370 Intel Xenon 3.20 GHZ 150 GB (72 * 2) 3 GB Suse Omega HP ProLiant 370 Intel Xenon 3.20 GHZ 300GB (72.8 * 4) Raid 5 4 GB Windows Server 2K3 Enterprise Edition Storage Box HP Storage Works 1400 Intel Xenon 2.00 GHZ 4 TB(1 TB * 4) Raid 5 2 GB Windows Server 2K8 Enterprise Edition Domain & Terminal HP ProLiant 350 Intel Xenon 3.20 GHZ 250 GB(72.8 * 3) Raid 5 4 GB Windows Server 2K3 Enterprise Edition Can some one help me as to how can i speed up my network at remote locations and reduce the problems of speed etc..

  Read the article

• Why is my wireless so slow compared to my wired download speed?

  - by Shawn

  I just used speedtest.net (using Firefox) to compare my wired connection speed with my wireless connection speed. With my current contract (with Videotron), I'm supposed to get Download speed: 8Mbps Upload speed: 1Mbps Here are the results of the speedtest.net test: Wired Ping: 14ms Download speed: 8.41Mbps Upload speed: 1.04Mbps Wireless Ping: 16ms Download speed: 0.18Mbps Upload speed: 0.98Mbps The difference in download speeds seems staggering to me since I did the test 1 meter aways from my router. Any clue as to why my wireless download speed is so low compared to my wired download speed? using Ubuntu 11.04 on an Acer Aspire 5536-5519 Oh and it might be worth mentioning that my girlfriend has no trouble at all with her wireless connection. No slowness at all. (She uses Firefox on Windows 7 on a Dell) Here's the results for the same test on her system: Ping: 22ms Download speed; 8.44Mbps Upload speed: 1.02Mbps

  Read the article

• How to direct outgoing traffic through specific interface?

  - by user1434058

  I added eth1 and eth2 to my Ubuntu Server, all 3 use DHCP and are on the same lan eth0 10.0.0.41 eth1 10.0.0.42 eth3 10.0.0.43 Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default router.net 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 curl --interface eth1 www.google.com doesn't work what else do i need to do for the above to work?

  Read the article

• Unable to access internet if wireless enabled

  - by balki

  The following is my route output. eth0 is my wired network and eth1 is my wireless network. Only wired one has access to internet. If I enable wireless, I am not able to access internet, it tries to access via eth1 and I get 404 page of the wireless router. Why does eth1 have higher preference though default is eth0 (link)? [balakrishnan@mylap ~]$ route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default 10.26.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.26.0.0 * 255.255.192.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 9 0 0 eth1

  Read the article

• RS-232 vs. RS-485

  - by user60524

  Doing a little research on the two to figure out which one may better suit my purposes (communications amongst different hardware). How do they fare against one another? Im far from being a specialist and have no idea where I would even start looking for data to compare and contrast. If possible can someone please answer the following questions in regards to each of these. Can they be networked amongst each other? Can they be easily networked over ethernet? What speeds do they transfer at? (Min, Max, Etc.) Reliability? Best framework to build on top of to support the above? Any standard communications programs? Debugging capability? Any help would be very much appreciated, thanks.

  Read the article

• Lenovo tools for windows 7: can't re-enable wireless

  - by pcampbell

  Consider a netbook - Lenovo S10e with Windows 7 and the S10 Lenovo power management tools. Machine has factory BIOS. Fn+F5 is the key combo to toggle the wireless radio on/off. The tool allows the disabling fine; works as expected. The problem is that the re-enable doesn't work, or is confusing on how to re-enable. Previously tried without success: Fn-F5 Fn-Ctrl-F5 Fn-Shift-F5 Fn-Alt-F5 Here's the onscreen display: Question: How can you re-enable the wireless radio using the Function key on a Lenovo netbook?

  Read the article

• Wired and wireless network file sharing

  - by Megan

  I have connected my Internet to a buffalo air station router and a swtich. Computers and Laptops on this network connect to the Internet wired and wirelessly. I would like to share files locally on this network but I can't access the laptop's which connect wirelessly. I have shared folders on each computer but I would like to know if local file sharing is possible as all the computers utimately connect to the same router. All computers are running Windows 7.

  Read the article

• Websocket handshake response not forwarded from TCP to client

  - by Saharsh

  I am trying to create a websocket server. I can see the websocket client's opening handhshake. My response to it is received by the client laptop (I can see this on wireshark). So the TCP connection has been established. But the client (a chrome websocket client extension) does not receive the handshake packet. What could be a possible reason for TCP to not forward the handshake to the client or for the client to not be able to read the TCP message? Client handshake: GET HTTP/1.1 Upgrade: websocket Connection:Upgrade Cache-Control:no-cache Host:192.168.0.101 Origin:http://www.websocket.org Pragma:no-cache Sec-WebSocket-Extensions:permessage-deflate; client_max_window_bits, x-webkit-deflate-frame Sec-WebSocket-Key: qrmw/m+BoZije6h9HYKmVw== Sec-WebSocket-Version:13 Upgrade:websocket Server Response: HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols Upgrade: websocket Connection: Upgrade Sec-WebSocket-Accept: jj1g5Io57m9ks8cme3jkbyo2asc= Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.websocket.org Server: xyz Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: Thanks!

  Read the article

• Offloading backups to secondary network

  - by user1467163

  I'm trying to solve a problem- Currently, we are constantly backing up and have no budget for additional servers. Our production network is still a 10/100 and handles voip, SQL plus our backup traffic, and I'd like to offload the backup traffic onto a secondary network- all of our servers have secondary NIC's that are not in use, and all support gigabit (Our switching hardware does not- a topic for another day). I'd like to move my backups off the production network, but I am having a hard time getting the computers to communicate. I am using a Netgear GS724T switch for the backup network- Chosen for cost and because I have used them extensively on networks saturated with ghosting traffic, so I know it's up to the task. I have defined a VLAN, with ports that are not members of any other VLAN. All traffic is untagged on the VLAN. I have set the servers with 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.11 addresses, 255.255.255.0 netmask and I have tried a blank GW, using the local IP of the server 192.168.1.whatever address, and I have tried using the switch's production-side IP as the GW. The machines cannot find each other. DNS addresses are blank because I am going purely by IP for now... Any ideas how to get these machines to talk? they are Windows machines, running Server 2008R2 and 2003R2. Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173  | Next Page >