New answers tagged

0

Since you tagged this as a reverse proxy question, I assume you mean that you want to proxy the request so that user only sees http://aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd/app2 URL in her browser. You can change your location block to this: location ~/app2(.*)$ { proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $remote_addr; ...


3

If you want to connect to remote host, you need to use its name, not the localhost: ssh -L 5672:R:5672 G in this way, you should be able to access host R on localhost:5672.


0

No. It would evade any kind of security by tunneling unknown and untrusted traffic into the network. You're already connected to your employer through VPN, so ask the employers IT staff to open up ports for you (on the VPN) if you need them.


1

This command: ssh -L 54320:Server_A:5432 user@Server_B looks good, but then when doing this: psql -p 54320 -d db_name -U user the ssh tunnel is not used, because by default on Unix, psql connects to a Unix domain socket, like suggested by the error message you mention ("...accepting connections on Unix domain socket...") You're just missing a -h ...


0

Your OUTPUT chain drops packets to all ports except 80. When you are loading the webpage at http://127.0.0.1:8080, its destination is port 8080, which is not allowed in the OUTPUT chain. You can allow all traffic from/to localhost with these lines: iptables -I INPUT 1 -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -I OUTPUT 1 -o lo -j ACCEPT This does not affect the external ...


0

I needed to do remote port forwarding from the EMR cluster (to forward the local port on the EMR cluster master node to the remote port on the EC2 instance) instead of local port forwarding on the EC2 instance (which was forwarding the local port from the EC2 instance to the remote port on the EMR cluster master node). So, the command looks like: ssh -R ...


1

AT&T's flash of the NVG599 does not support port forwarding where the same destination port routes to two devices. The workaround was to change the RDP port on the second PC to something besides 3389 and create the port forward to that.


0

I've never used UFW for my iptables configuration. I've always used cmd-line iptables/bash scripts to accomplish my firewalling. So my answer here is going to be in that format. This rule is to accomplish the NAT you want: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 91.121.XXX.XXX -p tcp --dport 2121 -j DNAT --to 192.168.122.59:21 What it does is accept TCP ...


1

It could be safe It depends on your security requirements and level of risk you are willing to take. Here are some considerations/ideas SSH is fairly secure, especially when forcing key authentication. Networks provide remote access via VPNs all the time. SSH is not much different. Password encrypt your SSH keys Enable automatic security updates You ...


0

So this is the definitive answer i was looking for. You first need to set NAT (prerouting) rule to redirect the traffic to the correct server/computer. Done like this... iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -s yy.yy.yy.0/24 --dport 3389 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.xx:3389 Then you need a Filter (FORWARD) Rule to allow the traffic to flow to the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included