On Sunday 18 October 2009 18:41:09 David Baron wrote:
> As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some logins not
> to be able to access internet browsing and such.
>
> How might one set this up?
>
The following command was suggested on a site sporting a similar thread:
iptabl
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:21:13 -0500
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
...
> I disagree on the last point. It could simply be an incompatibility
> between Shorewall and I. I find the RAW iptables rules clear and
> rational, I don't see the need to obfuscate them.
Fair enough - to each his own, I
David Baron wrote:
As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some logins not to
be able to access internet browsing and such.
How might one set this up?
I'm venturing a way out of my comfort zone here, but is this not a
service that can be disabled via the various groups
In <20091028011429.38cb199f.cele...@gmail.com>, Celejar wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:09:11 -0500
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
>> I can't help you with guarddog. I write my iptables rules by hand so
>> they remain understandable. I can't stand the trash that most
>> iptables rules generator
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:09:11 -0500
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote:
...
> I can't help you with guarddog. I write my iptables rules by hand so
> they remain understandable. I can't stand the trash that most
> iptables rules generators produce. (Shorewall, I'm looking at you.)
Can you elaborat
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:29:18 +0200
David Baron wrote:
> As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some
> logins not to be able to access internet browsing and such.
>
> How might one set this up?
I responded to you at the time:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2009/10/msg0
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:52:42PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> Iptables is "configured" at boot time, but this is not where it gets
I don't think iptables is really your answer, by itself. What you're
really trying to do most likely requires you to set up an authenticating
proxy server on a separ
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 14:52:42 David Baron wrote:
> On Sunday 18 October 2009 18:41:09 David Baron wrote:
> > As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some logins
> > not to be able to access internet browsing and such.
> >
> > How might one set this up?
>
> The suggestion w
On Sunday 18 October 2009 18:41:09 David Baron wrote:
> As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some logins not
> to be able to access internet browsing and such.
>
> How might one set this up?
>
The suggestion was made to use iptables, gui-owner --> drop.
Iptables is "confi
In <200910271529.18518.d_ba...@012.net.il>, David Baron wrote:
>As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some logins not
> to be able to access internet browsing and such.
man 8 iptables
Look at the owner match.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@igua
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:41:09 +0200
David Baron wrote:
> As undemocratic at it seems, sometimes it is necessary from some
> logins not to be able to access internet browsing and such.
>
> How might one set this up?
One method might be to force all traffic through a proxy, and require
authenticat
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On a computer connected to a router, which in turn is connected to the
> internet (more or less constantly), how do I restrict some users from
> accessing the internet.
>
> The lan is actually in a small community office. A c
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 04:07:54PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On a computer connected to a router, which in turn is connected to the
> internet (more or less constantly), how do I restrict some users from
> accessing the internet.
>
> The lan is actually in a small community office. A c
13 matches
Mail list logo
