similar to: Blocking certain hostnames/clients

Trying to set up a SAMBA print server using SlackWare 8.1. Have successfully joined it to the domain, but cannot browse into the shares, as it constantly asks for a password, and refuses to accept any including root and NTamdin accounts. Anybody have any ideas error logs and smb.conf are below. This is from the machine specific log file: [2002/08/21 11:41:56, 0]

So, I just looked into how I handle this internally. By default, the server uses the hostname contained in the HTTP request. If this name disagrees with the hostname in the certificate, then the certificate name is used. This is the hostname passed to all XMLRPC calls. Most XMLRPC calls don''t include facts, so I can''t use the facter-derived hostname except for in the

Hello, I am using shorewall for about a day now :) and so far so good (it looks like a really great software). I have a question though I could not answer from the docs. I have a large set of hosts which will be used to limit access to SSH. Is there a way to ''group'' these under an alias and use it afterwards for setting rules? I thought about using an action.something for

I have modified /etc/hosts file with IP address and hostname entries. However, host command is returning 'Host vhost1.example.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)'. Also, apache is returning error on start as '[error] (EAI 2)Name or service not known: Could not resolve host name vhost1.example.com-- ignoring!' . The ssh worked fine and resolved the hostname correctly (ssh from same system to

I am working on a project that involves host names with now sequence to them. I would like my "node" hostnames in nodes.pp to point to a file with a list of these hostnames. Example: node {path/filename} { instead of the usual: node ''www1.example.com'' { or node /^www\d+$/ { Can this be done? Can anyone show my an example of how this was achieved? Thanks

I'm trying to use nmblookup to find the IP address of a Windows machine called "MARKETKA" (only with an accent over the 'E'). If I do a reverse lookup on the IP address, with debugging enabled, I can see that the hex code for the accented 'E' character is 0x90: $ nmblookup -d 4 -A 192.168.1.15 | grep MARK answers 0 char .MARK.TKA hex

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=441 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #3 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-21

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-08 23:33:07 CEST --- As noted, #2 is solved already. Also, /128 will no longer print (commit 945353a2). But your #1 makes little sense to me: discovery.razor.cloudmark.com/22. How do you know that EVERY IP returned from a DNS lookup is always going to be a /22 mask?

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #5 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 03:45:06 CEST --- Re: Comment #4. One doesn't know what the addresses are until they are retrieved from the DNS. The point is that the routines which generate the rules are NOT checking the values AFTER the CIDR netmask is applied to eliminate POST-MASK duplicate answers. The

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #6 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 03:50:27 CEST --- Yes, I fully understand what is happening in the one specific example you have provided. However you need to answer what happens if Cloudmark suddenly decides to add an IP _OUTSIDE_ of that /22 that is assigned to them. Let's say they open a new

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #7 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 09:35:30 CEST --- Re: Comment #6 - It is up to the author of the ruleset to determine policy. It is the duty of the software to properly execute that policy. Here, the software fails to do so because it produces duplicate redundant rules which are never used. Note that iptables-save

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #8 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 15:56:45 CEST --- (In reply to comment #7) > It is the duty of the software to properly execute that policy. Here, the > software fails to do so because it produces duplicate redundant rules which are > never used. And where is it documented that the software

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #9 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 19:56:29 CEST --- RE: Comment #7: "It seems your best solution is to add a single rule with 208.83.136.0/22." Yet, it adds THREE rules, two of which will never fire, thus the problem and bug report. Extend your quota example: When the first rule reaches the quota, it will

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Phil Oester

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #11 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 21:48:05 CEST --- I fully disagree that the addition of duplicate rules that will never be reached is part of the design. As a waste of memory allocation, it is inefficient and therefore incorrect. The use of a hostname in place of an IP address literal should not have any effect in

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1544 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2130 --- Comment #17 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Retarget to openssh-6.4 -- You are

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1544 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2188 --- Comment #19 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Retarget incomplete bugs / feature requests

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1544 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2226 --- Comment #21 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Retarget to 6.7 release, since 6.6 was mostly

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1544 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2226 | --- Comment #23 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Remove from 6.7 blocker list. I'm not sure