Search Results

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

Page 171/468 | < Previous Page | 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178  | Next Page >

  • Process vsserv.exe attempts connection to unknown host (clients.your-server.de)

    - by pushpraj
    from past few day I notice a new connection is being made from my system, I discovered it within the outpost firewall, it is blocked by default with the reason Block Transit Packets in the image above you can see that the process vsserv.exe is attempting a connection to static.88-198-155-41.clients.your-server.de I tried to search on google but could not find any relevant info, however this link http://www.webmasterworld.com/search_engine_spiders/3963600.htm says that your-server.de hosts bad bots. I am bit concerned if something is not correct. Could you help me understand the same?

    Read the article

  • How can I start hostednetwork on Windows 7?

    - by Pirozek
    When I type in admin console command to start hostednetwork netsh wlan start hostednetwork it gives me this: The hosted network couldn't be started. The group or resource is not in the correct state to perform the requested operation. There is a hotfix from Microsoft but it didn't help me. Any advice? C:\Users\Pirozek>netsh wlan show driver Interface name: Wireless Network Connection 3 Driver : D-Link AirPlus DWL-G520 Wireless PCI Adapter(rev .B) Vendor : Atheros Communications Inc. Provider : Atheros Communications Inc. Date : 8.7.2009 Version : 8.0.0.171 INF file : C:\Windows\INF\oem108.inf Files : 2 total C:\Windows\system32\DRIVERS\athrx.sys C:\Windows\system32\drivers\vwifibus.sys Type : Native Wi-Fi Driver Radio types supported : 802.11b 802.11g FIPS 140-2 mode supported : Yes Hosted network supported : Yes Authentication and cipher supported in infrastructure mode: Open None Open WEP-40bit Shared WEP-40bit Open WEP-104bit Shared WEP-104bit Open WEP Shared WEP WPA-Enterprise TKIP WPA-Personal TKIP WPA2-Enterprise TKIP WPA2-Personal TKIP Vendor defined TKIP WPA2-Enterprise Vendor defined Vendor defined Vendor defined WPA-Enterprise CCMP WPA-Personal CCMP WPA2-Enterprise CCMP Vendor defined CCMP WPA2-Enterprise Vendor defined Vendor defined Vendor defined WPA2-Personal CCMP Authentication and cipher supported in ad-hoc mode: Open None Open WEP-40bit Open WEP-104bit Open WEP WPA2-Personal CCMP

    Read the article

  • Proxmox: VMs and different public IPs

    - by Raj
    I have a server which has two NICs and both are directly connected to internet. I have five different public IP addresses available for the VMs. The host machine (Proxmox) doesn't need to use any (it'll use a private IP and that's all) but will have internet connection. I've gone through the Proxmox documentation and I'm not able to understand the big picture to set up the right network configuration for my needs. In short, what I have is: One server (Proxmox, host machine) On that server, 5 VMs are created 5 public IP addresses available (one for each VM), let's say: 80.123.21.1, 80.123.21.2, 80.123.21.3, 80.123.21.4, 80.123.21.5 What I have now for the host is the following: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet manual auto eth1 iface eth1 inet manual auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 192.168.1.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet manual It can be reached from the internal network, so that's OK. It has internet connection, which is also OK. vmbr1 is going to be used by the VMs. Each VM will have its own IP on his network interfaces configuration file. For some reason, VMs will not have internet and they won't be able to have public IP address. If I use NAT, it will work correctly, but they will not use the public allocated IP addresses for them. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Suggestion of device WiFi range in it's spec. Possible?

    - by SeeR
    I have router Draytek Vigor 2100VG at home almost in the center of it. The farthest point at my home is my balcony, ~12m from it. I have constant wifi signal range problems with some of my devices, but not with others. Notebook Lenovo W510 - no problems Nokia Home Music - always on 10m - no problems Sony PS3 - always on 7m - no problems Sony tablet S - problems around 6m Sony PSP - problems around 8m Sony PS Vita - problems around 8m Nokia E63 - problems around 8m I'm curious why my Notebook don't have any problems even on the balcony? I guess it has better hardware or uses more power for transmission. This information is really important when you want to buy new device/computer, so my real question is: Can device wifi range can somehow be found/suggested from official hardware technical specification? If not Is there some web page with wifi range reviews?

    Read the article

  • Use both OpenVPN & eth0 together

    - by shadyabhi
    I connect to a VPN using openVPN. Now, after the connection is established, all my traffic goes through tun0. My LAN gateway is 10.100.98.4... So, for apps to use my direct internet connnection I did sudo route add default gw 10.100.98.4 But, I cant use tun0 now. I know this because curl --interface tun0 google.com doesnt give me anything.. How do I go about using both connections simultaneously. How can I achieve that? ROUTING TABLES:- Without VPN running:- Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.100.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 default 10.100.98.4 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 With VPN:- Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.10.0.1 10.10.54.230 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 10.10.54.230 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 free-vpn.torvpn 10.100.98.4 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0 10.100.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 default 10.10.54.230 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 After the route command- Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.10.0.1 10.10.54.230 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 10.10.54.230 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 free-vpn.torvpn 10.100.98.4 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0 10.100.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 default 10.100.98.4 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 default 10.10.54.230 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0

    Read the article

  • Wireless dropouts that only affect subset of devices

    - by jwaddell
    When watching videos streamed over WiFi from a NAS box (D-Link DNS-323) I am getting wireless dropouts. However they only appear to occur when I have left my laptop (Dell Inspiron 9300 running Windows XP SP3) running; the laptop is usually suspended if I'm not using it. The dropouts have occurred when streaming to a Netgear EVA8000 streaming device, and also to a PS3. I'm using a Netgear DG834G as the wireless modem/router. When a dropout occurs I go to the laptop and see that its wireless connection has also dropped out. The odd thing is that my wife's MacBook and my iPhone still maintain their connections. What could be causing this behaviour, and how do I go about fixing it?

    Read the article

  • Forward all traffic from one IP to another Ip on OS X

    - by Josh
    This is related to this question I just asked... I have two IP address on my iMac I want to "bridge". I'm not sure what the proper terminology is... here's the situation. My iMac has a firewire connection to my laptop and an ethernet connection to the rest of my office. My laptop has an ip of 192.168.100.2 (on the firewire interface). My iMac has an IP of 192.168.100.1 on the firewire interface, and two IPs, 10.1.0.6 and 10.1.0.7, on it's ethernet interface. If I wanted to forward all traffic coming in from 192.168.100.2 on my OS X machine to go out on IP 10.1.0.7, and vice-versa, can this be done? I assume I would use the ipfw command. Essentially I want to "bridge" the firewire network to the ethernet network so my laptop can see all the machines on the 10.1 network, and all those machines can see my laptop at 10.1.0.7. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Taskbar Disappears Over Remote Desktop Connection When Outside Local Network

    - by CMikeB1
    I've got a machine on my home network running Windows Server 2012 (Based on Win8) and rather than attach a monitor I remote desktop in and it works fine on my local network. The problem is, when I try to access it from outside my local network the taskbar disappears completely. When I minimize an application rather than minimize to the taskbar it simply closes the window as small as it can as if the taskbar never existed (see photos at ). I've messed with the connection properties (show/hide desktop background, etc.) with no luck. I've used the following methods to remote in and they all are fine when on the local network and taskbar-less from outside: Remote Desktop Connection on Mac Remote Desktop Connection on Windows Jump Desktop on iOS using RDP To access the computer from outside my local network I'm using a Linksys router and mapping to the server IP, port 3389. See Photos: http://i.stack.imgur.com/FyUeQ.png http://i.stack.imgur.com/9MnVr.png

    Read the article

  • How to analyze a wifi network with many devices

    - by Caveatrob
    My friend has a wifi network with an x-box, a wii, a playstation, and two nintendo portables. She's also got 2-3 PC's and a network printer. She's got a wifi repeater as well. She claims that she didn't have any issues for months with everything working together, and suddenly everything stopped disconnecting. I haven't been over there yet - wanted to figure out the best way to diagnose the thing. I asked her to send me the stats on the booster and the modem, etc: The booster is Netgear serial #2ac2195506b95 The modem is Cisco Linksys e1500 #10910c12129103 We have a sprint router thru centurylink and they said it is working fine 660 series

    Read the article

  • ip conflict error

    - by mhay
    how to resolve ip conflict error ? i m getting my server's ip address when i m downloading from rapidshare ? and my ip address is different.

    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

  • Debian Wheezy, hostapd running but no AP detected by clients

    - by f0o
    I've an TL-WN951N (AR5416+AR5008) using ath9k module running an hostapd and a dhcp for it. So hostapd starts fine: $ hostapd wifi.test Configuration file: wifi.test Using interface int1 with hwaddr f4:ec:38:9b:d4:93 and ssid 'test' hostapd.conf: interface=int1 driver=nl80211 ssid=test channel=1 But nobody seems to find it or being able to see it or connect to it by setting BSSID to 'test'. I'm quite frustrated now, I find 'howto' after 'howto' from people with same chipsets and it always seemed to work out great for them - but not here... iw list even shows up the AP mode being present at the interface... Thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • Why are the external IP of my router not the same as the external IP of my computer

    - by Martin
    I have a standard network setup where all my network devices, both WIFI and ethernet, are connected to the same router. Lately, however, I've been experiencing some very strange behavior. It started as a simple connecting error, when I tried to reach an FTP server using the external IP. Of course I went right into one of those CheckMyIP sites, to double check the IP and it turned out to be correct. Then I went into my router setup, which is through a tool called aiport-tool, because I have an Apple Aiport Extreme router. Turns out the router displays a different external IP, and for some reason that external IP works when I try to access the FTP server. Can anyone explain what is going on? Why are the devices connected to the router displaying an incorrect external IP? BTW i have no VPN/proxy setups on any of my devices.

    Read the article

  • Jumbo Frames on DIR-655

    - by Spookyone
    I am trying to set up jumbo frames on my gigabit home LAN but no luck so far. My setup is: D-Link DIR-655 router, HW Revision A3, Firmware 1.21 EU Synology DS107+, Firmware 3.0-1337 Laptop w/ Win7 x64, external PCIx NIC managed by "Generic Marvel Yukon 88E8053 based Ethernet Controller" The router is supposed to support jumbo frames but doesn't feature any relevant setting. I set the Jumbo Packet value to 9000 on both the NIC and the Synobox but it doesn't work, ping -f -l 8972 says "Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set". Is there any other setting I overlooked, the DIR-655 doesn't actually support jumbo frames, or what else could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • pfSense routing between two routers with shared network

    - by JohnCC
    I have a network set-up using two pfSense routers arranged like this:- DMZ1 WAN1 WAN2 DMZ2 | | | | | | | | \___ PF1 PF2___/ | | | | \___TRUSTED___/ Each pfSense router has its own separate WAN connection, and a separate DMZ network attached to it. They share a common TRUSTED LAN between them. The machines on the trusted network have PF1 as their default gateway. PF1 has a static route defined to DMZ2 via PF2, and PF2 has a static route to DMZ1 via PF1. There is NAT to the WAN but internal networks (DMZ1/2 and TRUSTED) use different RFC1918 subnets. I inherited this arrangement, and all used to work fine. I made a config change to PF1 (relating to multicast), and machines on DMZ2 suddenly could not talk to TRUSTED. I rolled the change back, but the problem persisted. What I guess you'd hope would happen is that TCP packets would go DMZ2 - PF2 - TRUSTED and on return TRUSTED - PF1 - PF2 - DMZ2. That's the only way I can see it would have worked. However, PF1 drops the returning packets. I've verified this using tcpdump. I've worked around this by adding static routes to DMZ2 via PF2 to the servers on TRUSTED, but some devices on there do not support static routes so this is not ideal. Is there way to make this arrangement work decently, or is the design inherently flawed? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to make XAMPP virtual hosts accessible to VM's and other computers on LAN?

    - by martin's
    XAMPP running on Vista 64 Ultimate dev machine (don't think it matters). Machine / Browser configuration Safari, Firefox, Chrome and IE9 on dev machine IE7 and IE8 on separate XP Pro VM's (VMWare on dev machine) IE10 and Chrome on Windows 8 VM (VMware on dev machine) Safari, Firefox and Chrome running on a iMac (same network as dev) Safari, Firefox and Chrome running on a couple of Mac Pro's (same network as dev) IE7, IE8, IE9 running on other PC's on the same network as dev machine Development Configuration Multiple virtual hosts for different projects .local fake TLD for development No firewall restrictions on dev machine for Apache Some sites have .htaccess mapping www to non-www Port 80 is open in the dev machine's firewall Problem XAMPP local home page (http://192.168.1.98/xampp/) can be accessed from everywhere, real or virtual, by IP All .local sites can be accessed from the browsers on the dev machine. All .local sites can be accessed form the browsers in the XP VM's. Some .local sites cannot be accessed from IE10 or Chrome on the W8 VM Sites that cannot be accessed from W8 VM have a minimal .htaccess file No .local sites can be accessed from ANY machine (PC or Mac) on the LAN hosts on dev machine (relevant excerpt) 127.0.0.1 site1.local 127.0.0.1 site2.local 127.0.0.1 site3.local 127.0.0.1 site4.local 127.0.0.1 site5.local 127.0.0.1 site6.local 127.0.0.1 site7.local 127.0.0.1 site8.local 127.0.0.1 site9.local 192.168.1.98 site1.local 192.168.1.98 site2.local 192.168.1.98 site3.local 192.168.1.98 site4.local 192.168.1.98 site5.local 192.168.1.98 site6.local 192.168.1.98 site7.local 192.168.1.98 site8.local 192.168.1.98 site9.local httpd-vhosts.conf on dev machine (relevant excerpt) NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName localhost ServerAlias localhost *.localhost.* DocumentRoot D:/xampp/htdocs </VirtualHost> # ======================================== site1.local <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName site1.local ServerAlias site1.local *.site1.local DocumentRoot D:/xampp-sites/site1/public_html ErrorLog D:/xampp-sites/site1/logs/access.log CustomLog D:/xampp-sites/site1/logs/error.log combined <Directory D:/xampp-sites/site1> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks AllowOverride All Require all granted </Directory> </VirtualHost> NOTE: The above <VirtualHost *:80> block is repeated for each of the nine virtual hosts in the file, no sense in posting it here. hosts on all VM's and physical machines on the network (relevant excerpt) 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost 192.168.1.98 site1.local 192.168.1.98 site2.local 192.168.1.98 site3.local 192.168.1.98 site4.local 192.168.1.98 site5.local 192.168.1.98 site6.local 192.168.1.98 site7.local 192.168.1.98 site8.local 192.168.1.98 site9.local None of the VM's have any firewall blocks on http traffic. They can reach any site on the real Internet. The same is true of the real machines on the network. The biggest puzzle perhaps is that the W8 VM actually DOES reach some of the virtual hosts. It does NOT reach site2, site6 and site 9, all of which have this minimal .htaccess file. .htaccess file <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\. RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L] </IfModule> Adding this file to any of the virtual hosts that do work on the W8 VM will break the site (only for W8 VM, not the XP VM's) and require a cache flush on the W8 VM before it will see the site again after deleting the file. Regardless of whether a .htaccess file exists or not, no machine on the same LAN can access anything other than the XAMPP home page via IP. Even with hosts files on all machines. I can ping any virtual host from any machine on the network and get a response from the correct IP address. I can't see anything in out Netgear router that might prevent one machine from reaching the other. Besides, once the local hosts file resolves to an ip address that's all that goes out onto the local network. I've gone through an extensive number of posts on both SO and as the result of Google searches. I can't say that I have found anything definitive anywhere.

    Read the article

  • Laptop loses signal from WiFi router, but mobile phone holds it fine

    - by Anton
    Hi, I have an extremely weird issue with my WiFi router. Both Ubuntu & Windows 7 can connect to it fine, but after 5-10 minutes browser (any one) stops opening pages and tells me it cannot resolve host address. But, at the same time, tools like Skype or BitTorrent work without any issues. I can also browse Internet on my mobile phone connected to the very same router. If I reset router it helps, but after 5-10 minutes I see just the same problem... Ubuntu tells me that WiFi signal is lost (mobile sees it), Windows 7 just won't let me browse anywhere. Can anyone give me a suggestion on this, please? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Wifi and eth behavior

    - by r00ster
    I have a wireless router 150M Wireless Lite N Router Model No. TL-WR740N / TL-WR740ND. Normally, when I'm connected to the local network using eth0 I can ping other machines by issuing ping name. When I'm connected through wifi I have to issue ping name.domain.com. The machine is only visible in intranet. How to achieve the same behavior with wifi? The second problem is, that I can not connect to some external sites through wifi but through eth everything is ok. I guess that is related to some port forwarding, but I'm not sure. How can I resolve this issue? EDIT: I'm using Linux Mint.

    Read the article

  • map linux drives to windwos 7 for media stream over internet

    - by Ortix92
    I'm trying to map a linux network drive to my windows 7 laptop, however this laptop is not on LAN. At home, I simply use Samba, but this obviously won't work over the internet. I'm trying to avoid VPN, so if there are other solutions, I would like to know about them. The reason I ask is because my university does this as well. We can simply map folders to our computers without VPN connections. I'm not sure what they are running as servers. The main reason is because I want to be able to access my files stored on my home server wherever I go. They are located in the /home/ folder (videos, music and pictures folder). I'm trying to keep my websites and media separate from each other. I wouldn't mind accessing them from a web interface either, but I would like to keep the directory structure intact. I remember having an app like that come with winamp and running it on my windows pc (As the server). Unfortunately it doesn't work for linux. Any ideas on what I could use? Would XBMC be able to help me out with this? I did do some researching but I couldn't find any concrete answers

    Read the article

  • On a local network, are you able to password protect certain folders and how (in windows xp)?

    - by Derek
    I have a local network set up for my small office which consists of me, the manager, my wife, the secretary, and a few sales people/others. I would like to share passwords over the network and other such things privately to my wife, the secretary, but would not like the sales people and others to have access to it, yet I need the others to have access to other folders/documents that I'd like to share. How would I go about doing this if not by password? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Windows network routing

    - by fabianvilers
    Hi! I'm working by my customer premises and they let me connect my private laptop on a dedicated Wi-Fi for internet access. It's nice for external consultants. The only issue is that we can't connect on a remote server on port 25. I suppose this policy is set up to avoid infected computers sending spam from their network. As you can have guessed, this is something weird that I can't send mail at all. Fortunately, I've a 3G cell phone that I can connect by Bluetooth on my laptop. So when I want to send an e-mail, I have to disconnect from Wi-Fi, connect my phone, send the e-mail, disconnect phone and reconnect Wi-Fi. Kinda overhead. My question is: how can I tell Windows 7 to use the Wi-Fi for every out connection, but if it's a connection on port 25, use the cell phone network? With this solution, I could let my phone connected all day without having to switch again and again. Thanks a lot for your anwwers. Fabian

    Read the article

  • How to set a static route for an external IP address

    - by HorusKol
    Further to my earlier question about bridging different subnets - I now need to route requests for one particular IP address differently to all other traffic. I have the following routing in my iptables on our router: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.1.1.0/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.2.2.0/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two private connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT This configuration means that users will be forwarded through a modem/router with a public address - this is all well and good for most purposes, and in the main it doesn't matter that all computers are hidden behind the one public IP. However, some users need to be able to access a proxy at 192.111.222.111:8080 - and the proxy needs to identify this traffic as coming through a gateway at 129.2.2.126 - it won't respond otherwise. I tried adding a static route on our local gateway with: route add -host 192.111.222.111 gw 129.2.2.126 dev eth2 I can successfully ping 192.111.222.111 from the router. When I trace the route, it lists the 129.2.2.126 gateway, but I just get * on each of the following hops (I think this makes sense since this is just a web-proxy and requires authentication). When I try to ping this address from a host on the 129.2.2.0/25 network it fails. Should I do this in the iptables chain instead? How would I configure this routing?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178  | Next Page >