similar to: Samba as PDC across multiple physical sites

Hola folks, How do I configure a share under Samba 2.2 using DOMAIN security to allow all members of a specified NT domain group access to a particular share? For example, something like: [test] comment = Test Share path = /mnt/share/test nt group = Nice-users, Wonderful Users Where Nice-users and Wonderful Users are NT domain groups? So if User X is a member of Nice-users, she would be

After parsing through the various bits of available documentation, I'm forced to bow before the group and ask the following Silly User Question: While I can create and set NT ACLs on files/folder, anything in the root of the share can be deleted by any user who has access to that share. I've munged something in my file permissions. What /should/ the file permissions for a root share

Hey guys I''ve been beating my head on this for a few hours. Maybe it is just a stupid configuration error you can point me at. First here is a small diagram of what I am trying to configure: http://6bit.com/img/netdiag.png Currently I only have Shorewall running on the host on the right of the diagram until I can get this working then I''ll add it to the other host as well.

Hi, I would like to configure a Xen private network where the guests use private addresses. So far I have setup the Dom0 instances and the vm''s can access to the other guests inside the same server. Now my question is how can the guests reach the other guests that are located in other physical servers. Here is a diagram of how the network looks:

Hello Lartc Mailing List: Been working on something the last week and a half and ALMOST have it working.., just need a few pointers from the wizards on this mailing list to nail it. Ok, my setup is a hub and spoke arrangement, hub is Cisco 2821 with IOS 12.4. Spokes are ruggencom RX1000 routers, Debian based with the following versions installed: rx1000test:~# uname -a Linux rx1000test

Hi, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

Stephen Clark wrote: > Robert Noland wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 07:48 -0500, Stephen Clark wrote: >>> Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> Stephen Clark wrote: >>>>> Julian Elischer wrote: >>>>>> you will need to define the setup and question better. >>>> thanks.. cleaning it up a bit more... >>>> >>>>

Hi, Does anyone have experience using IPSEC on CentOS in order to connect to vendor IPSEC-based VPN products (specifically Checkpoint FW1) ? Is the included IPSEC implementation sufficient, or do people have to rely on OpenSWAN or FreeSWAN ? I'd be testing tomorrow and I'm interested with experiences others have had and things to look out for. Thanks in advance, -- dag wieers, dag

All, With the dual-ISP support in the latest versions of Shorewall, is it also possible to setup dual-VPN with something like OpenVPN? If so, what are the high levels steps that would need to be completed? Aaron

Hello List, I know 4.9 is ancient history, but unfortunately we have several thousand sites installed. We are in the process of moving to 6.1 when it is released. Right now I have an immediate problem where we are going to install two system at a HQ site. Each of the 2 systems will have two gre/vpn/ospf tunnels to a 100 remote sites in the field. The broadband will be a T3 with failover to

Hello all, I am configuring a vpn between freeswan and windows 2000. I am following the steps at http://www.jacco2.dds.nl/networking/win2000xp-freeswan.html, to get the VPN up and running. using this I have a ppp tunnel between windows and linux, which is inside a l2tp tunnel which is again encrypted by IPSec. (the url gives the configuration in detail and I have followed it exactly) Now the

On 12/29/2017 3:59 AM, Wojciech ?ysiak wrote: > firstly check which zone are your interface in : > > bash> firewall-cmd --get-active-zones > > then all you have to do is add a service to the firewall > > firewall-cmd --zone=<INSERT YOUR ZONE> --add-service=openvpn --permanent > > assuming that your Openvpn is running on standard port 1194/tcp|udp, > If not

Hi, Does anyone tried to get ipip or gre tunnel behind NAT environments. ? i''m trying to make both side tunneling with ipip or gre with private address just like belows.. A -------------------FIRWWAL -------------------INET ------------------- B PRIVATE PUBLIC PUBLIC (10.100.0.1) (211.xxx.xxx.xxx) (

Sigh? _____ Van: Sorisio, Chris [mailto:ChrisSorisio@PeakTechnical.com] Verzonden: vrijdag 6 februari 2004 15:56 Aan: Gogh, Ruben van Onderwerp: Out of Office AutoReply: IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT becomes def ault to deny I will be out of the office until February 9th, 2004. Please contact Paul DeFloria at 412.825.4772 if you require an immediate response.

I am attempting to setup an IPSec protected GRE tunnel with a Cisco router. I believe the IPSec association is up, however I cannot move traffic over the tunnel. It is not clear how to integrate the tunnel interface (gre1) with firewall-cmd; adding the interface to trusted does not appear to 'stick'. [root at aqueduct ~]# firewall-cmd --add-interface=gre1 --zone=trusted The interface

Hi, I was hoping someone would be able to help me out with a problem i've been having with samba. A few days ago I tried to do some configurations and something went wrong and now I can't start up the server anymore. Here's the error message i keep receiving: /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libcups.so.2" not found I checked in the /usr/libexec directory and see

we have an external 2Mbit dsl connection and running on it are several gre vpn tunnels so far i''ve given priority to the vpn traffic (using htb) can i now put rules in for the tunnels to control traffic within each tunnel (that''s where our video conferencing etc runs)? or can i only control the real interface (eth1 in our setup)? if not can i somehow see the packets inside the

Hello I have /25 addressed on a box (virtual devices on eth0) and I want to tunnel some of these addresses to my home network. One address to my gateway (a.b.c.d, external IP) and one address to my internal network (192.168.0.0/24-style). I will use the tunnels for irc, smtp and surfing. What protocol and which technique is easiest and best to use? One more thing. I don''t want to set up

I always used multiple links from different ISPs and in my oppinion the best way to really aggregate bandwidth is using some kind of proxy which the client connects to and distribute multiple connections to the links. Years ago, a friend of mine wrote Netsplitter: http://www.hostname.org/netsplitter/ but it''s outdated, abandoned (last version from 2002). And it was mainly written for

Hello everybody, I''m trying to set up netem on a SuSE box (kernel 2.6.16), but I''m having some weird problems, considering that on my Gentoo laptop (kernel 2.6.17) it worked fine. If I write: # tc qdisc add dev eth0 root netem delay 20ms loss 20% and then try pinging another machine over eth0, I get a 24ms delay but no packet loss (while on my laptop I get 21ms and a correct