search for: netblocks

Patch is below : diff -nru openssh-3.8.1p1/auth-options.c openssh-3.8.1p1-devs//auth-options.c --- openssh-3.8.1p1/auth-options.c Tue Jun 3 02:25:48 2003 +++ openssh-3.8.1p1-devs//auth-options.c Mon Feb 21 16:56:49 2005 @@ -265,6 +265,81 @@ xfree(patterns); goto next_option; } + +/* e.g: permitopenned="158.156.0.0/255.255.255.0:25[-1024]" + * note that part between [] is

Hi Everyone, We rent a CentOS 7 VM from GoDaddy. We received a warning about excessive cpu usage, and a threat to cancel our service. We tracked it down to Apache and someone hammering our web server. The offending host is 59.64.129.175. To err on the side of caution we attempted to block the entire netblock. According to whois data, that's 59.64.128.0-59.64.159.255. iptables -A INPUT

I am trying shorewall as my previous post With alisias on eth1 loc and 4 pptp client vpns. The odd thing is when I enter one of the vpns in interfaces such as vpn1 it works. But if I enter the vpn in the hosts file shorewall blocks the vpns. shorewall/hosts #ZONE HOST(S) OPTIONS loc eth1:192.168.25.0/24 loctw eth1:192.168.50.0/24 locsa eth1:192.168.75.0/24 vpntw

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:58 AM Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > We rent a CentOS 7 VM from GoDaddy. We received a warning about > excessive cpu usage, and a threat to cancel our service. We tracked it > down to Apache and someone hammering our web server. > > The offending host is 59.64.129.175. To err on the side of caution we >

On 19/04/2020 14:58, Jeffrey Walton wrote: Hi Jeffrey, > The offending host is 59.64.129.175. To err on the side of caution we > attempted to block the entire netblock. According to whois data, > that's 59.64.128.0-59.64.159.255. > > iptables -A INPUT -s 59.64.128.0/19 -p TCP -j DROP > > After reboot cpu usage is still high and access_log still shows > useless

Thought it might also be helpful to confirm that firewalld is not interfering in any way. what is the output of ~$# systemctl status firewalld On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:30 AM Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:26 AM Anand Buddhdev <anandb at ripe.net> wrote: > > > > On 19/04/2020 14:58, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > >

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:40 AM Mike <1100100 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thought it might also be helpful to confirm that firewalld is not > interfering in any way. > > what is the output of ~$# systemctl status firewalld Thanks Mike. # systemctl status firewalld Unit firewalld.service could not be found. Jeff

Some lists and emails are distributed via ns1.samba.org. For those of you that use ORBS, you'll find it is blacklisted now. There is no mention of it on the website and it doesn't return a positive when you enter it for testing but it has slipped into the ORBS blacklist somewhere. Samba.org admins may wish to force all ns1 outbound email via another netblock, bringing it up to ORBS only

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 9:26 AM Anand Buddhdev <anandb at ripe.net> wrote: > > On 19/04/2020 14:58, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > Hi Jeffrey, > > > The offending host is 59.64.129.175. To err on the side of caution we > > attempted to block the entire netblock. According to whois data, > > that's 59.64.128.0-59.64.159.255. > > > > iptables -A

CentOS-6.6 We have a host that has multiple IPv4 addresses aliased to eth0. The primary address is 216.185.71.x and the alias is 192.168.6.x. This host connects to devices on both netblocks without problems. Only default routing is used and it looks like this: #ip route 192.168.6.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.6.x 216.185.71.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 216.185.71.x 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1002 default via 192.168.6.1 dev eth...

On 19/04/2020 15:30, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > Ugh, thanks. I did not realize the changes were only temporary. > > What is the recommended way to permanently add a ban rule? On CentOS 7, the default firewall is "firewalld", and you can configure it with "firewall-cmd". You can use it to add temporary or permanent rules. You can read the man page of that to learn how

Hi, I would normally post this to the drbd list but it so low traffic/low volume (plus Austria might be asleep right now) I figured i'd ask someone here in case they have gotten drbd working on centos. Right now my system says i'm only the 971st person to even install it... It's been out for years, so likely this just means version 8. But you'll only see a couple of posts

I am contemplating converting some of our internal networks from routable to private IPv4 address space. I have a question about RIP as implemented under Cisco IOS 12.x. Presently the setting for rip is: router rip version 2 passive-interface [[FastEthernet]]0/0 network aaa.bbb.ccc.0 no auto-summary What I would like to know is how one routes the entire 192.168/16 address space using rip.

Hi, I have a question. I have a routeable /24 netblock including a server at a colocation and I would like to use tincd to tunnel part of that netblock to an internal network on another location being connected to the internet via gateway with DSL link and a single static IP address, so I can use public routable IP addresses on the local network. I have tincd 1.0 pre7 installed on both the local

...found in this table are not permitted to establish SSH sessions to my networks, and the attempted activity is logged. (I also use the same technique on my laptop and my work desktop, and -- manually, so far -- keep the tables in question synchronized.) I have accordingly added the VAULT-NETWORKS netblocks to this table, pending either information or reason to remove those specifications. Granted, there appears to be no access granted, but the lack of sshd logging makes me nervous. Have other folks noticed this type of behavior? Have I gone off the deep end of paranoia? (Yes, I expect that some o...

Robin Lynn Frank wrote: > I have an entire /8 blacklisted. The problem is there is a single IP in > it I want to exempt from this. Searching the web site, I note there > used to be (circa version 1.3) a whitelist feature, but I couldn''t find > a simple solution to what I want to do. > > What would be the bes/easiest way to accomplish this? I can''t think of a

CentOS-6.5 i86_64 qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.415.el6_5.4 MS-Windows v7proSP1 We have installed a MicroSoft Win7 system as a guest and have joined it to our MS AD domain. The system runs and has internet access. However, the IPv4 address it obtains and the gateway it is assigned are both sourced from the virtual machine host system and not from our AD DC DHCP server. To clarify, the virbr0 IP address

Sub:[LARTC] cbq init for one port on a subnet Hello, We use cbq.init to limit bandwidth. It works great on a per-user basis. Now I''d like to limit traffic from a netblock to the Internet on port 6699. Network is 192.168.0.160 mask 255.255.255.224 eth0 is the gateway eth1 connects the netblock in question Is this the proper syntax; DEVICE=eth0,10Mbit,1Mbit RATE=100Kbit

On 2/12/07, Herman J van der Merwe <herman@mercygate.com> wrote: > OK, I have NUT up and running, but I want other FreeBSD hosts (machines) to > monitor the UPS as well and when the UPS sends a shutdown, they must > shutdown as well. > > According to the INSTALL.txt file, I ,ust add an ACL entry for every host. > > The format NUT uses is one of ACL <myhost>

I've been having some odd problems with samba and it's libsmb/nmblib parts. It seems to be trying to transmit data to the .63 of my netblock, i.e. the IP of the machine would be 24.240.60.20, it'd be trying to transmit to 24.240.60.63. I've changed IPs about 15 times since, and it does it to each different block I change to. If the IP of the local machine got changed to