Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 ... Last
[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 13:29:48 EDT from ycm @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Check the following in your conf :

ListenAddress

That directive tells sshd what addresses to listen on. It might be badly set.



[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 17:57:06 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I'll give that a look-see at home.

[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 18:03:40 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The other thing you might try -- but you'll have to be home at the console, of course, is to try running some other service on port 22 and see if it behaves differently. That'll tell you whether it's a problem with SSH or with the network configuration.

Also -- and I apologize if this was already covered -- have yoy checked to make sure that you aren't running any firewall scripts on the host itself?

Finally ... "tcpdump -n -i eth0 port 22" will tell all.

[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 18:05:08 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That leaves something else on the Linux box that's preventing
incoming connections from working on that port for some reason.

iptables.

[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 20:13:16 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


ListenAddress is not set at all within sshd_config.

iptables shows an ACCEPT for tcp from anywhere to anywhere on ssh.

tcpdump is... verbose. I will probably need to perform that on the console (for sanity's sake), and access my work computer to try connecting to port 22 from remote.

[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 22:46:52 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

oh duh, something simple? Is ssh listening only on the local interface? Oh wait you said you can get at it from other machines on the lan right?

[#] Wed Apr 07 2010 22:47:14 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yes, I can.



[#] Thu Apr 08 2010 11:14:21 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

netstat -lnpt

is your friend



[#] Thu Apr 08 2010 15:07:10 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If I understand correctly, fleeb's server only has one interface. It isn't dual homed with one interface facing out and another facing in.

[#] Thu Apr 08 2010 17:09:18 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


That's correct. I just have the one nic in the machine. There's another machine that's acting as a firewall (it's a hardware firewall, the kind appropriate for a small business rather than a residence, heh).

[#] Thu Apr 08 2010 21:11:26 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

This is where Cisco would say "let's do a WebEx"

[#] Fri Apr 16 2010 09:26:03 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

WTF?!!!!

Reading databases from /usr/share/clamav
Not loading PUA signatures.
LibClamAV Error: cli_hex2str(): Malformed hexstring: This ClamAV version has
reached End of Life! Please upgrade to version 0.95 or later. For more
information see www.clamav.net/eol-clamav-094 and www.clamav.net/download
(length: 169)

I understand why they do the warnings that the engine is old and needs to be
upgraded, but to SHUT THE WHOLE THING OFF because some newer signatures don't
work? That's STUPID!!!

[#] Sat Apr 17 2010 19:56:05 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That doesn't sound like it was planned, it's just an error from the loader library and it happens to exit out rather than skipping.
But what you see here is a perfect example of the you-must-stay-in-the-game mantra that is so endemic (?) in the linux world.
You HAVE to keep up whether you want to or not. And more often than not I don't want to, I want to keep what I have working... working, but you can't do that.
Certainly you've run into this before no?


[#] Sat Apr 17 2010 20:27:41 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In the vast majority of my unix and linux experience, things have only broken when I touched them.

This was a deliberate crippling of a piece of software. And yes, it's partially my fault because I don't follow the mailing list, but really, should I have to? They sent out a message a few months ago saying that support for 0.94 was going to end, but then this week they officially forced 0.94 off the air by sending out an update that they knew would make it stop working. Somehow they got their URL into the error message, too.

This is very irresponsible. Millions of seats of email are protected by ClamAV. Depending on the configuration of each site, those seats either became unprotected or stopped receiving email.

[#] Sun Apr 18 2010 11:29:30 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

partially my fault because I don't follow the mailing list, but really,

should I have to? They sent out a message a few months ago saying that


No, you shouldn't have to even have paid attention to the support-going-away email either.

But consider other instances.
w3c.org (I think that's the url) is the domain listed in a lot of DTD listings. They're there for reference, they're not supposed to be programmatically used, but apparently a lot of software was resolving the address and reading the file, such that the w3c ended up paying a lot of money in bandwidth they didn't intend to (that'll teach them to use a URL to denote a file version, assholes) so what they did was fix their webserver to start returning http 503 when systems asked for these files and one day lots of software all over the world started breaking. Yay.
People who ran the software who's fault it was not, they just bought a broken package.
There's another example I had, but I can't remember at themoment, but that's just the way it is people just do whatever they want, and you have to deal.

Actually I guess the best example is facebook. THey're so stoned on their success that they have no concept that they should have some respect for their FREE DEVELOPER base. They break their API all the time and they could care less how many programs they break, becuase they're popular, and it's not their problem.

I expect apple to do the same thing. I suppose in one sense they already do. The hell you have to go through to put up an app is abuse never before seen in the software world (well, outside AT&T I guess)

[#] Sun Apr 18 2010 11:30:27 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The difference though is AT&T pays its employees to take the abuse. apple and facebook abuse the people who are freely trying to help their market. And in most cases, they have no chance of making any money for all the abuse they take.

They All Suck.

[#] Sun Apr 18 2010 16:20:20 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Lovely log message from dovecot:

"Time just moved backwards by 8 seconds. This might cause a lot of problems, so I'll just kill myself now."

Wow.

[#] Sun Apr 18 2010 23:30:54 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

This is very irresponsible. Millions of seats of email are protected

by ClamAV. Depending on the configuration of each site, those seats
either became unprotected or stopped receiving email.

Umm, developers of antivirus software don't generally support old engine versions indefinitely. If you want to guard against the latest threats... you have to update.

[#] Mon Apr 19 2010 10:41:37 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Agreed, but it shouldn't just up and die one day, it should simply fail to protect against the latest threats.

[#] Mon Apr 19 2010 15:23:10 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

speaking of...

I recently got rid of my 2nd to last machine and I think I mentioned this I now have nowhere to backup my one remaining machine to.
so I got a 64g usb stick, and it finally arrived yesterday.
So I was playing with it. First I thought I'd try my rsync trick.
Well, the stick was formatted fat32, so all the permission information went away.
so I put a ext3 filesystem on it and linux started complaining that there was no journaling information and wouldn't mount it.
Okay, ext2, it did that, and then I tried to rsync to it, and I got lots of IO errors.
I don't know if this is bad memory or the driver doesn't work or what, but it reliably messed up files a lot of the time.
So I ran badblocks and it said there were no problems (but that was a readonly test) I haven't tried a write/read test yet.
So... before I go too much farther is there a know issue with using USB sticks with ext2? I looked around and it seems like common practice.
It's quite possible I got a shitty stick, or maybe a stick of shit but I dunno.
Are there usb stick verify utilities?



Go to page: First ... 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 ... Last