Search Results

Search found 11524 results on 461 pages for 'insurance networking news'.

Page 237/461 | < Previous Page | 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244  | Next Page >

• How to use a Network adapter only for a specific Connection on Win7?

  - by Tokk

  Hey, Guys I've got several network adapter in my PC (from LAN, WLAN, VPN etc...) and what I want to accomplish is that some specific adresses use the VPN adapter, while all others use eiter LAN or WLAN. (So for example http://win-server/ is using VPN, while www.google still uses LAN connection.) I've want to solve this with the Windows settings and not the VPN settings to make sure I can do it with every VPN-Provider. Thank You

  Read the article

• IP to IP forwarding with iptables [centos]

  - by FunkyChicken

  I have 2 servers. Server 1 with ip 1.1.1.1 and server 2 with ip 2.2.2.2 My domain example.com points to 1.1.1.1 at the moment, but very soon I'm going to switch to ip 2.2.2.2. I have already setup a low TTL for domain example.com, but some people will still hit the old ip a after I change the ip address of the domain. Now both machines run centos 5.8 with iptables and nginx as a webserver. I want to forward all traffic that still hits server 1.1.1.1 to 2.2.2.2 so there won't be any downtime. Now I found this tutorial: http://www.debuntu.org/how-to-redirecting-network-traffic-a-new-ip-using-iptables but I cannot seem to get it working. I have enabled ip forwarding: echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward After that I ran these 2 commands: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 1.1.1.1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 2.2.2.2:80 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE But when I load http://1.1.1.1 in my browser, I still get the pages hosted on 1.1.1.1 and not the content from 2.2.2.2. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Network structure --> Server 2k8r2 <--> Livebox <--> Router <--> Other PCs

  - by Yusuf

  I have a Livebox connection to the Internet and I have set up my network as follows: - Livebox <--> Win2k8R2 Server - Livebox <--> Netgear N150 Router - Router <--> Other PCs Therefore, in my LAN, - the Livebox has IP address 192.168.1.1, - the Router 192.168.1.12 (when accessed from the Livebox or the server), - the Router 10.0.0.1 (when accessed from the PCs connected to the Router), - the server 192.168.1.2, - the PCs 10.0.0.x I was using a previous configuration, which was as follows: - Livebox <--> Netgear N150 Router - Router <--> Win2k8R2 Server - Router <--> Other PCs Everything was simple, and I just had to forward all ports for incoming connection on the Livebox to the Router, and then forward the specific ports to the Server as needed (it must be however noted that any server I use is found on the Win2k8R2 server itself). In this previous configuration, the IP addresses were as follows: - Livebox 192.168.1.1 - Router 192.168.1.12 (when seen from Livebox) - Router 10.0.0.1 (when seen from server & PCs connected to it) - Server 10.0.0.2 - PCs 10.0.0.x So now of course, my port-forwarding does not work anymore since the server is not connected (directly) to the Router. What I would like to know is how do I configure the Livebox and Router to still have the features like before? From what I understand of networks (which is very limited, btw), I see these options: Make the router assign IPs like 192.168.1.x (but then I want the forwarding to be done from the router itself, is it possible?) The forwarding on the router to the server uses IP address 10.0.0.2. I could change it to 192.168.1.2 (Is that even possible, does it work?) Forward all ports from the Livebox itself to the server, and then manage them there (Is software-based port-forwarding as secure as hardware-based?)

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• linux macvlan - stop from broadcasting hostname

  - by staticfloat

  I am trying to simulate two different computers on one box, using the macvlan module (which is awesome, by the way) but I have one small problem; When I create the macvlan Ubuntu 11.10 very helpfully starts broadcasting its hostname on both interfaces, creating an amazing amount of confusion for everything that deals with hostnames. Does anyone know how to stop ubuntu from advertising its hostname on a certain interface? Thanks!

  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

• Connect to wireless network only through Virtual Machine

  - by eych

  (Using VirtualBox with Win7 host/guest...) Is it the possible to connect to a wireless network in a virtual machine, but keep the host os disconnected? [useful in places where wi-fi is free]

  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

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244  | Next Page >