On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 05:02:49AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> site="download.gluonhq.com"
> date
> time ping "${site}" -c 4
> time traceroute "${site}"
>
> $ site="download.gluonhq.com"
> date
> time ping "${site}" -c
site="download.gluonhq.com"
date
time ping "${site}" -c 4
time traceroute "${site}"
$ site="download.gluonhq.com"
date
time ping "${site}" -c 4
time traceroute "${site}"
Mon 14 Aug 2023 11:54:19 PM UTC
PING s3-website.us-east-1.amazonaw
On 4/13/23, Lee wrote:
> you should probably start off with
> https://archive.nanog.org/sites/default/files/10_Roisman_Traceroute.pdf
> A Practical Guide to (Correctly)
> Troubleshooting with Traceroute
thank you, lbrtchx
On 4/12/23, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> I have found a few examples and "explanations" but in the cases of
> the examples I have seen by other people, like:
>
> https://serverfault.com/questions/733005/what-does-having-mean-in-the-command-traceroute-and-how-can-you-cope-w
odern manner.)
Once again, "social" issues remind me of my dear grandpa Hegel ;-).
There must be idiotic people like me for "smart" people out there to
"be themselves".
The issue at hand was the traceroute exaggerated "* * *" output, no?
BTW, I made sure to p
On Wed 12 Apr 2023 at 20:18:19 (+0100), debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> I was playing with the addresses listed by Albretch and found that
> 199.254.252.1 is interesting. whois says it belongs to "Alexandria Sash
> & Door (ASD-1)" and
> https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_wa/601161047 (via
),
because by default "traceroute" sends them without delay and remote
hosts could "see" them as flood.
Try to test same route again, but with a send delay set to a reasonable
1 second using "-z" parameter, like so:
# traceroute -z 1 8.8.8.8
--
W
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:37:32PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> > It is not with every site and it is mostly with one hop.
>
> > $ traceroute google.com
> > traceroute to google.com (172.217.0.174), 30 hops max, 60 byte
> > packets 1
On 4/12/23, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> unicorn:~$ traceroute www.google.com
> traceroute to www.google.com (142.250.190.4), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 routerlogin.net (10.0.0.1) 0.413 ms 0.355 ms 0.415 ms
> 2 65-131-222-254.mnfd.centurylink.net (65.131.222.254) 38.070 ms
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:37:32PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> It is not with every site and it is mostly with one hop.
> $ traceroute google.com
> traceroute to google.com (172.217.0.174), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
> 1 _gateway (199.83.128.1) 6.687 ms 6.660 ms 6
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:37:32PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> I have found a few examples and "explanations" but in the cases of
> the examples I have seen by other people, like:
Quoth the man page:
This program attempts to trace the route an IP packet would
follow to some internet hos
consistently- "happen" to me?
The last hop doesn't forward your packet. If you still can ping a site or
simply consult it it should be the last hop filtering the packet type
used by traceroute. You can try traceroute with icmp or tcp packet to
check if this is the point.
I have found a few examples and "explanations" but in the cases of
the examples I have seen by other people, like:
https://serverfault.com/questions/733005/what-does-having-mean-in-the-command-traceroute-and-how-can-you-cope-wit
It is not with every site and it is mostly with one
Hi,
I've already reported part of this to glibc mailing list since I was
suspecting its incompatibility with newer kernel.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2019/03/msg00029.html My daemons
started to stuck with kernel 4.19 / 5.0. Today I discovered there is
always process of trace
On Friday 07 October 2016 19:00:12 Tony Baldwin wrote:
> I have a little business card website up for my big brother's media
> consulting side-business at http://playomatic.myownsite.me.
> Now, at the moment, if I try to load it in Google-Chrome-Stable, I'm
> getting redirected to a yahoo! search f
On Sunday 09 October 2016 12:28:03 Tony Baldwin wrote:
> I kind of think Montenegro should be .Mn, really (or that for the US
> stat of Minnesota).
Except that it is Mongolia. Country TLDs have to be unique.
Lisi
Hi Andy,
Thanks very much! It looks like quite a comprehensive answer (including
links) that I'll surely have to read more than once to absorb. (At that
point, I'll ask more questions if I feel the need.)
regards,
Randy Kramer
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:18:38 PM Andy Smith wrote:
> On
Hi rhkramer,
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 04:23:45PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm not the OP, and I'm sort of piggybacking and going somewhat (or a lot?)
> OT,
In that case it would be good to change the subject of the email.
I've done so here.
> but I am curious about how old inet4 (right
I'm not the OP, and I'm sort of piggybacking and going somewhat (or a lot?)
OT, but I am curious about how old inet4 (right term?) and the new inet6
addresses interact.
When I do ifconfig, I see that eth0 has both a 32 bit (e.g., 192.168.1.19) and
an inet6 address assigned.
Can anybody point m
On 10/09/2016 11:54 AM, claude juif wrote:
Are you logged in with a google account on that chrome/chromium ? By
the way, how did you install them ?
I WAS logged into my google account when I had the problem, in fact,
but eventually determined that when I logged out, I could load the
proper p
Richard Hector writes:
>
> It appears that Montenegro only came into existence (most recently) in
> 2006 - it was part of Yugoslavia, then 'Serbia and Montenegro'. So all
> the 'good' codes were presumably taken.
I'd imagine .me would, like .tv (Tuvalo) be one that a small country
could use to bo
Are you logged in with a google account on that chrome/chromium ? By the
way, how did you install them ?
To resume :
On your debian computer, only for this website, you get redirect to ads
only with chrome/chromium ?
I would try these :
purge chromium and chrome.
Install chromium and go to your
On 10/09/2016 07:36 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
On 10/10/16 00:28, Tony Baldwin wrote:
But we're getting a bit off-topic :-)
Richard
Indeed we are, but I thank you for humoring my curiosity.
Thanks,
Tony
--
http://tonybaldwin.me
all tony, all the time
On 10/10/16 00:28, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/09/2016 07:23 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
>> On 10/10/16 00:20, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>>> What country is .me? here in th US, of course, it could be the
>>> State of Maine.
>>
>> Montenegro, apparently. According to a quick web search ;-)
>>
>> Ric
On 10/09/2016 02:28 PM, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/09/2016 07:23 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
>> On 10/10/16 00:20, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>>> What country is .me? here in th US, of course, it could be the State of
>>> Maine.
>>
>> Montenegro, apparently. According to a quick web search ;-)
>>
>>
On 10/09/2016 07:23 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
On 10/10/16 00:20, Tony Baldwin wrote:
What country is .me? here in th US, of course, it could be the State of
Maine.
Montenegro, apparently. According to a quick web search ;-)
Richard
Thanks, I was curious, couldn't think of anything, all t
On 10/10/16 00:20, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> What country is .me? here in th US, of course, it could be the State of
> Maine.
Montenegro, apparently. According to a quick web search ;-)
Richard
On 10/09/2016 07:11 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
On 08/10/16 07:00, Tony Baldwin wrote:
I have a little business card website up for my big brother's media
consulting side-business at http://playomatic.myownsite.me.
Now, at the moment, if I try to load it in Google-Chrome-Stable, I'm
getting redi
On 08/10/16 07:00, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> I have a little business card website up for my big brother's media
> consulting side-business at http://playomatic.myownsite.me.
> Now, at the moment, if I try to load it in Google-Chrome-Stable, I'm
> getting redirected to a yahoo! search for "create web",
url in your address bar.
> >The network panel should show you what happens
>
> That doesn't seem to tell me anything traceroute doesn't, except
> trqacerout doesn't get redirect to a Yahoo! search like chrome does,
> but nothing I see there seems ot clarify WHY or HOW it
an intruder
or any such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to
indicate
anything untoward or fishy.
The only thing I haven't tried is Epiphany, Konqueror,
Safari, or IE.
Oddly, it seems to work fine in chrome on
an intruder
or any such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to
indicate
anything untoward or fishy.
The only thing I haven't tried is Epiphany, Konqueror,
Safari, or IE.
Oddly, it seems to work fine in chrome on
in all of Iceweasel, lynx, w3m, elinks it loads fine, and nothing
>>> has changed on my server (no redirect added to my vhost by an intruder
>>> or any such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to indicate
>>> anything untoward or fishy.
>>> The only
thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to indicate
anything untoward or fishy.
The only thing I haven't tried is Epiphany, Konqueror, Safari, or IE.
Oddly, it seems to work fine in chrome on my android phone, though.
How can I determine what's interfering with this page loading in
thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to indicate anything
untoward or fishy.
The only thing I haven't tried is Epiphany, Konqueror, Safari, or IE.
Oddly, it seems to work fine in chrome on my android phone, though.
How can I determine what's interfering with this page loading in
quot;create web",
If I try to load it in the floss chromium, I get a spammy landing page,
But in all of Iceweasel, lynx, w3m, elinks it loads fine, and nothing has
changed on my server (no redirect added to my vhost by an intruder or any
such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem
ry to load it in the floss chromium, I get a spammy
landing page,
But in all of Iceweasel, lynx, w3m, elinks it loads fine, and
nothing
has changed on my server (no redirect added to my vhost by an
intruder
or any such thing), also neither p
>> But in all of Iceweasel, lynx, w3m, elinks it loads fine, and nothing
>> has changed on my server (no redirect added to my vhost by an intruder
>> or any such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to indicate
>> anything untoward or fishy.
>> The only thing I haven
ed to my vhost by an intruder
or any such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to indicate
anything untoward or fishy.
The only thing I haven't tried is Epiphany, Konqueror, Safari, or IE.
Oddly, it seems to work fine in chrome on my android phone, though.
How can I determine what
n the floss chromium, I get a spammy landing page,
But in all of Iceweasel, lynx, w3m, elinks it loads fine, and nothing
has changed on my server (no redirect added to my vhost by an intruder
or any such thing), also neither ping nor traceroute seem to indicate
anything untoward or fishy.
The
Freddy Freeloader wrote:
>
> To check to see if this is the problem install wireshark, if you don't
> already have it installed, and do a packet capture when trying to surf to an
> external
> website. If you have dns queries going to 224.xxx.xxx.xxx avahi-daemon/mdns
> is the
> culprit.
Hi Fredd
On Sat,09.May.09, 17:52:16, Giancarlo Pegoraro wrote:
> I'm sorry, I remember no more of two (2) nameserver in
> the /etc/resolv.conf, but I'm not sure :-)
The manpage (resolv.conf(5)) says 3.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einste
Marcelo Laia wrote:
I connect to net from my notebook like this:
ISP ---> computer ---> notebook (friend) >
my notebook
ADSLcable wireless ad-hoc
My notebook connect, i am able to ping any IP, tracerout
Hi,
Il giorno sab, 09/05/2009 alle 10.07 -0300, Marcelo Laia ha scritto:
-cut--
> Debian testing kernel 2.6.29-1-686
>
> At work, from eth0, I surf on the net very well.
>
> :~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
> nameserver 200.221.11.100
> nameserver 208.67.2
I connect to net from my notebook like this:
ISP ---> computer ---> notebook (friend) >
my notebook
ADSLcable wireless ad-hoc
My notebook connect, i am able to ping any IP, traceroute resolve, but
fire
he feed just dried up.
>
>> There is no increased spam in my ISPs spam folder. The messages aren't
> >even getting *to* the ISP.
>
>> Since the problem is not unique to me or my ISP, I would be inclined to
> >look further upstream for the problem.
>Hi Brian,
hi ya clive
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Clive Menzies wrote:
> Tracing the path to www.google.com (216.239.59.99) on TCP port 80 (www),
> 30 hops max
> 1 * * *
> 2 * * *
> 3 * * *
> 4 * * *
> 5 * * *
> 6 * * *
> 7 * * *
> 8 * * *
> 9 * * *
> 10 * * *
> 11 * * *
> 12 216.239.59.9
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (06/05/04 18:17), Alvin Oga wrote:
you're probably trying to go thru a slow firewall or heavily loaded
network
Try tcptraceroute instead.
Regards,
David.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:17:35PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> you're probably trying to go thru a slow firewall or heavily loaded
> network
where simultaneous different browsers work?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
x27;t work on my sid box. One of
> > life's little mysteries ;)
>
> what is the results of traceroute and its response times
> traceroute one.that.works.com
> traceroute one.that.fails.com
>
> you're probably trying to go thru a slow firewall or heavi
hi ya
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Clive Menzies wrote:
> Nope, sid still gives "Bad Request".
>
> However, debian.org works fine .. curious because
> http://www.google.com definitely won't work on my sid box. One of
> life's little mysteries ;)
what i
Here's the final answer from my ISP on the situation Moral of the
story... do NOT add inline comments in your /etc/network/interfaces file.
D'OH!!!
emma
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Dear customer,
This appears to have been the result of a misconfiguration of your
serve
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to understand if the DNS problem I'm having is my fault or my
ISP's fault.
>From the server, I try to get to three different locations:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute 207.218.245.47
traceroute to 207.218.245.47 (207.218.245.47), 30 hops max, 38 byte pac
I'm using gShield to configure iptables.
If I do a traceroute from my internal NAT'ed LAN the first hop is the
firewall machine. That machine doesn't respond and shows "* * *" for
the times. But machines *after* respond fine.
But if I traceroute from the outside t
Hi there,
I have a setup where one server is acting as a router with
four interfaces. From interface on network A when I try to traceroute a
ip which is on network A too I see the server trying to go to the
defaultroute hop on network B which is very strange because it should
go
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 02:49:20AM -0600, John Hansen wrote:
> This is a repost. Please forgive me. I do not subscribe to this e-mail
> list. Please e-mail me back with comments. Thank you so much. It's a
woody
The reason you probably didn't get many responses the first time is
that the open sour
This is a repost. Please forgive me. I do not subscribe to this e-mail list.
Please e-mail me back with comments. Thank you so much. It's a woody system
with 3.0 on it. i386 2.2.19
Greetings. I have what is probably a simple question.
Traceroute is unusable. It errors out like so:
d
On Friday 20 September 2002 13:46, Andy Saxena wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:03:56PM +0100, john gennard wrote:
> | I still have problems trying to configure a home network.
> | Thinking traceroute might shed some light on this, I ran the
> | program and got the following er
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 08:03:56PM +0100, john gennard wrote:
| I still have problems trying to configure a home network. Thinking
| traceroute might shed some light on this, I ran the program and got
| the following error messages:-
|
| a. From box 4 to 5 where ping works but not telnet
I still have problems trying to configure a home network. Thinking
traceroute might shed some light on this, I ran the program and got
the following error messages:-
a. From box 4 to 5 where ping works but not telnet
traceroute: warning: findsaddr: cannot open netlink socket:
address
Hi all,
This week I did my potato -> woody upgrade. Pretty painless. Thanks to all
concerned.
A problem that I'm having though is when I traceroute, I get the following
warnings:
traceroute: Warning: findsaddr: cannot open netlink socket: Invalid argument
traceroute: Warning: ip c
Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started getting these errors yesterday. I can't figure out where
> they're coming from. System is mostly woody with a few packages from
> unstable. Any hints would be most appreciated.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute
I started getting these errors yesterday. I can't figure out where
they're coming from. System is mostly woody with a few packages from
unstable. Any hints would be most appreciated.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ traceroute www.debian.org
traceroute: Warning: findsaddr: error sending netli
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:04:26AM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote:
>
> Any ideas why I'm unable to run a traceroute to an IP address without
> first pinging it ?? If I try and trace a site, it does little to
I am not sure here.
> I do have an IPTABLES firewall running. Pinging a
Any ideas why I'm unable to run a traceroute to an IP address without
first pinging it ?? If I try and trace a site, it does little to
nothing. Here's what a trace to www.debian.org shows after 15 seconds:
traceroute www.debian.org
traceroute to www.debian.org (198.186.203.20), 30 ho
to this point, extremely satisfied with its performance. However,
> > > I've recently started having some signifiant issues with my cable modem
> > > provider and they routinely want to ping and traceroute to my machine.
> > > This requires me to take down my firewal
ve recently started having some signifiant issues with my cable modem
> > provider and they routinely want to ping and traceroute to my machine.
> > This requires me to take down my firewall and wait for them to finish,
> > then put it back up. I'd like to make, as part of my
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You could further limit your rules by specifying the source
>address of you cable modem provider, something like:
>
> -A INPUT -p icmp -s provider.cable.net -j ACCEPT
>
>Just figure out from your logs what ip address(es) t
William Jensen uttered:
>
> I'm experiencing 20 to 54% packet loss coming into my pc and going out.
> Charter cable company has been "resolving" this for almost 8 months now.
> I've even showed them the exact ip to their local router that's causing
> the problems, yet the continue to want to ping
Hi!
Just an interesting note
We had traceroute and ping disabled on our firewall, and our support guy got
_deluged_ with calls from ppl claiming the server was down 'cos they couldnt
ping it. They had tried to actually use the service it offered of course
(typical lusers!).
So consider
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> As an only marginally related question, does anyone know of a good way
> to configure a linux system to refuse all connections to any system that
> is brokenly not responding to ICMP packets?
Hmm... very, very nice idea.
I suppose a modified version of the
inely want to ping and traceroute to my machine.
> This requires me to take down my firewall and wait for them to finish,
> then put it back up.
As an only marginally related question, does anyone know of a good way
to configure a linux system to refuse all connections to any system that
is bro
le modem
> provider and they routinely want to ping and traceroute to my machine.
> This requires me to take down my firewall and wait for them to finish,
> then put it back up. I'd like to make, as part of my rule set, ping and
> traceroute able to get through. So far I'v
Depending on who you talk to there and how reasonable they
are, tell them you use a firewall and don't want to leave your
machine "vulnerable" like this. It's possible that they will
use the same machine or machines when they want to ping or
traceroute to you. If so, you
What do you think is dangeous about allowing ping/traceroute?
Neither are be used to establish a service which could be exploited, so
why so you care about denying ping / traceroute?
Exactly, I'm going about the firewall as deny everything, then just let
through what I know I want to
der and they routinely want to ping and traceroute to my machine.
> This requires me to take down my firewall and wait for them to finish,
> then put it back up. I'd like to make, as part of my rule set, ping and
> traceroute able to get through. So far I've done this for my in
William Jensen wrote on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 02:30:29PM:
> These appear to work, however, am I overlooking something from a
> security point of view by allowing any icmp and ip's through?
What do you think is dangeous about allowing ping/traceroute?
Neither are be used to establis
> ...and they routinely want to ping and traceroute to
> my machine. This requires me to take down my
> firewall and wait for them to finish, then put it back
> up. I'd like to make, as part of my rule set, ping and
> traceroute able to get through. So far I've done
I've setup a fairly restrictive set of rules for iptables and have been,
up to this point, extremely satisfied with its performance. However,
I've recently started having some signifiant issues with my cable modem
provider and they routinely want to ping and traceroute to my mac
They are in the dnsutils and traceroute packages respectively.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Schuetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 2:42 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: 'nslookup', 'traceroute' in debian
My machine --running
"Tom Schuetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My machine --running potato-- claimed not to know either nslookup or
> traceroute. No man pages, either.
>
> Are there Debian equivalents to these commands?
Yes, try the following:
% apt-cache search nslookup
dnsutils
My machine --running potato-- claimed not to know either nslookup or
traceroute. No man pages, either.
Are there Debian equivalents to these commands?
Thanks.
Tom Schuetz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/01/2001 at 14:06 -0800, brian moore wrote:
> This is a sign that you have an ipchains (or ipfwadm or iptables...)
> rule that is forbidding output of UDP.
>
That was it... Thanks!
~sena
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.smux.net/~sena/
gpg fingerprint: F20B 12A8 A8F6 FD1F 9B1D BA62
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:25:31PM +, sena wrote:
> Hi.
>
> When using traceroute (as root), I get the following problem:
>
> decoy:~# traceroute 194.65.3.20
> traceroute to 194.65.3.20 (194.65.3.20) from decoy, 30 hops max, 38 byte
> packets
> traceroute: sendto:
Hi.
When using traceroute (as root), I get the following problem:
decoy:~# traceroute 194.65.3.20
traceroute to 194.65.3.20 (194.65.3.20) from decoy, 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
traceroute: sendto: Operation not permitted
1 traceroute: wrote 194.65.3.20 38 chars, ret=-1
*traceroute: sendto
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:04:36PM -0500, William Jensen wrote:
> An update to myself...in case others are having this problem:
>
> I added the following rule to my script:
>
> $IPT -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -j ACCEPT
>
> My understanding is now the box will accpet 'echo replies' that I wou
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, William Jensen wrote:
> Another update to myself and others that may want this information:
>
> This update concerns traceroute. If I added the following rules I can now
> traceroute to anywhere, but traceroutes to me fail:
>
> $IPT -A INPUT -p icm
Another update to myself and others that may want this information:
This update concerns traceroute. If I added the following rules I can now
traceroute to anywhere, but traceroutes to me fail:
$IPT -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type time-exceeded -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type port
the
> firewall offline both ping and traceroute work fine. Ping works on localhost,
> though traceroute does not when the firewall is up. Unfortunetly I am too new
> at both debian and firewalling to know where I went wrong. I'm trying to set
> it up so I can ping and traceroute
I think it's my firewall blocking them going _out_ because when I take the
firewall offline both ping and traceroute work fine. Ping works on localhost,
though traceroute does not when the firewall is up. Unfortunetly I am too new
at both debian and firewalling to know where I went wrong.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 05:57:41PM +0200, Leen Besselink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just a quick question, but why is traceroute stationed in a sbin directory
> ? As normal user I can use it too, so why ? or is this just because of
> some arcane old tradition ? And some old scripts depend
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 05:57:41PM +0200, Leen Besselink wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just a quick question, but why is traceroute stationed in a sbin directory
> ? As normal user I can use it too, so why ? or is this just because of
> some arcane old tradition ? And some old scripts depend
Hello,
Just a quick question, but why is traceroute stationed in a sbin directory
? As normal user I can use it too, so why ? or is this just because of
some arcane old tradition ? And some old scripts depend on it ?
I think it's so strange.
tia for an answer,
Lennie.
Hello,
Some details about the Traceroute implementation may be found
on http://cities.lk.net/trproto.html
- ICMP, IP, UDP in the Traceroute.
- Sockets subroutins which the Tracerroute uses:
sendto, recvfrom, setsockopt, select.
- Why the Traceroute uses Raw Sockets, why
the Tracerote
Hi --
I recently installed a machine with debian. I only have one problem
with the install.. I can't ping.. whenever I try to ping:
<3 bleh:~ >ping 127.1
ping: socket: Protocol not supported
traceroute has this error also:
bleh:~# traceroute 127.1
traceroute: icmp socket: P
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Pollywog wrote:
> Is it just me or does traceroute need to be suid root?
Traceroute needs to be setuid so it can write IP packets directly rather
than using the socket interface. Without that ability, it could not set
the time-to-live on the packet and thus wouldn't work.
Is it just me or does traceroute need to be suid root?
I was unable to use it as an ordinary user until I set the suid bit.
thanks
--
Andrew
to use traceroute and got the message:
>
> traceroute: icmp socket: Operation not permitted
>
> This has happened only recently. I tried running the command as root,
> but got the same message.
>
> It appears that this has happened since I last did apt-get dist-upgrade
> (I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) wrote:
>
> - Your traceroute binary is setuid, but not to root, or
> - there is some firewall rule blocking ICMP packets installed
Thanks, Mike. I took a look in /usr/sbin and found a few files which are
set as owned by gsmh and as group 100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip Deackes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Today I tried to use traceroute and got the message:
>
>traceroute: icmp socket: Operation not permitted
>
>This has happened only recently. I tried running the command as root,
>but
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
