similar to: NetBIOS over TCP/IP versus direct hosting over TCP/IP

Dear people with higher intelligence than me, I''m trying to install xen 4.4-Unstable from source. I used this wiki page : http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Compiling_Xen_From_Source. Steps I took : 1) Check-out from git (master) 2) ./configure 3) make world 4) make install 5) /sbin/ldconifg 6) Reboot into xen I''m currently running an up to date version of Fedora 19. After rebooting

I've just about googled my brains out over this one, and banged heads with several other SA buddies. I have a nightly rsync of a DMZ system (Solaris 8 SPARC[1]) to an internal system (RedHat ES 3.0 [2]). The internal system runs a cron job and pulls changes off of the DMZ system via ssh. (To be honest, I've also seen this going between two Solaris systems.) However, my syncs are

Dear Folks, Is there a documented case of earliest use of rsync over internet? I presume rsync was used almost as soon as internet was invented as a file transfer and bandwidth efficient backup solution. If anyone has any information, please respond. -- Raghu Kulkarni

win2k/XP clients can access this fine, but not NT clients. Samba is listening on the netbios-dgm/ns ports and there's no packet filtering: udp4 0 0 atarashii.netbios-dgm *.* udp4 0 0 atarashii.netbios-ns *.* udp4 0 0 *.netbios-dgm *.* udp4 0 0 *.netbios-ns *.*

Sorry if this is such a basic question but I couldn't find anything about this in the FAQs/HowTos/Digest. I've compiled samba-1.9.18p3 on SunOS4.1.3_U1. When I tried to run smbd via inetd.conf (SIGHUP), I always get the following on the console. inetd[590]: netbios-ssn/tcp: unknown service I've edited the /etc/services to add: netbios-ssn 139/tcp And the /etc/inetd/conf with

Hello, (Samba 3.0.21c / Linux 2.4.27) a smbd process was hanging on a file server since one day. This smbd process was locking some files on the server, and that was causing some share violation for a Windows user (well, that what I think). I did a lsof on the smbd process, and I saw that the TCP netbios-ssn connection was still seen as established with the machine of the windows user that

Ahh, many sleepless nights spent on a stinky Windows 98 box! I'm using Samba 2.2.0 with Red Hat Linux 7.1, and am having trouble resolving the samba server. I went through the "fault tree" in the "Using Samba" book, and this was the section I got stuck on. Do I need to be running a name server besides nmbd? nmblookup returns some results: ----------8<----------

Hi, i'm trying to configure XP clients to communicate with Samba3 PDC without NETBIOS. I've disabled NETBIOS over TCP/IP on XP clients and on Samba3 server. I also created neccessary DNS records as described in Samba-HOWTO-Collection but yet without success. I've created DNS SRV entry _ldap._tcp.pdc._msdcs.domainame.com as described in Samba-HOWTO but this is what happends: 1.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello list Recently I have discovered that my users are getting \\fileserver\userdrive mapped as homedir instead of \\fileserver\userdrive\<username>. I played around abit and discovered the following: g-file samba # smbclient -L localhost -U jrnielsen%<mypassword> Domain=[NORDIC] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.11] Sharename

I have been searching the archives and confused about some points that I am hoping could be cleared up. RSA versus DSA I seem to see a lot of messages saying this. That DSA is slow. DSA was added only to avoid a patent which is now expired. RSA is the preferred authentification method. DSA should be avoided. Which all sounds fine to me and I think I agree with that. Assuming this applies

Does llvm-gcc do more, less, or the same amount of function inlining as gcc? What about llvm-g++ and g++? I am specifically interested in inlining that occurs when I run with the --emit-llvm command line flag like this: llvm-gcc -c --emit-llvm foo.c thus generating bitcode. That is, I am not interested at this moment in what happens when I run the opt or llc tools on the bit code after its

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #2 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-20

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696 --- Comment #3 from Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> 2013-06-21 15:50:56 CEST --- (In reply to comment #2) > you have to put this REJECT rule before any RELATED/ESTABLISHED > conntrack ctstate match rules (which is suboptimal). No, I can use conntrack -D to have the connection unESTABLISHED. In general, it is polite to send a

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696 --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-21 20:09:31 CEST --- > The kernel manages the seq and > ack_seq counters itself, so it doesn't have to try ...for locally terminated connections, yes. But what about forwarded traffic? That is where the difficulty comes in. Netfilter would need to be able to

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696 --- Comment #5 from Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> 2013-06-22 10:05:55 CEST --- (In reply to comment #4) >> The kernel manages the seq and ack_seq counters itself, so it doesn't have >> to try > > ...for locally terminated connections, yes. But what about forwarded traffic? > That is where the difficulty

Having recently read about the lack of security of Active X controls, I was wondering if I could get some specifics about its lack of security versus the security of JAVA. Also about the security of JAVA under Linux. I understand that MS''s concept of security is a) investigate the vendor, b) issue a certificate of authority, 3) vendor is now trused to do anything (fox guarding the hen

Hi, I spotted today following line at my FreeBSD 4.6.2-RELEASE IPFIREWALL log: Jul 1 13:34:35 fbsd /kernel: ipfw: 1400 Accept TCP xxxxxx:22 yyyyy:22 in via ed1 where xxxxxx is the attacker's IP and yyyyy is my box. But in sshd log, there are no traces left behind by this connection. Normally, there is "Did not receive identification string from xxx" etc, when somebody tries to

Howdy, It seems that even when specifying the --with-tcp-wrappers configure flag, the LIBWRAP define in config.h never gets #define'd and -lwrap never gets added to LIBS in the Makefile. To make sure I wasn't dealing with a stale configure file, I ran autoconf on configure.in to roll a new configure. I also don't see anything wrong with the --with-tcp-wrappers defined in

So long as the tcp socket is open your SBC should send the call back over the same socket. Now it can be that your SBC is seeing the socket as timing out. If you are using Kamailio you can have it send tcp keep alives every so often so that the socket stays up. On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:41 AM Benoit Panizzon <benoit.panizzon at imp.ch> wrote: > Hi List > > I wonder how SIP via

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 2:00 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote: > Dovid Bender <dovid at telecurve.com> writes: > > > So long as the tcp socket is open your SBC should send the call back over > > the same socket. Now it can be that your SBC is seeing the socket as > > timing out. If you are using Kamailio you can have it send tcp keep > alives >