"J.O. Aho" wrote:
> Conner Destron wrote:
>> How would I go about configuring my xinetd's kr5-telnet server on my red
>> hat Linux 8.0 box to respond to a port other than the standard port 23?
>> (As you can see from my signature file below, I've already got port 23 on
>> my network being answered by a different machine.)
>
> Edit your /etc/xinetd.d/kr5 (or what the kerberos service config file may
> be called) and add between the { }
>
> port = 2431
Ok, once that's done do I need to do anything other than 'telinit 5' to make
the change take effect?
>> I'm getting ready to take a trip and will need to be able to remotely
>> access my machine while gone, but my laptop doesn't have a SSH client on
>> it.
>
> Oh, it's so difficult to install... take 2 mins to install one.
> If you happens to have bill gates software on it, do a ggole for putty and
> you have ssh in notime.
Ok, I can do that, would the step above be different for sshd? The port
issue remains the same.
>> firewall already blocks or forwards all the ports that I might use except
>> for an odd one that I have open for another service that will not be
>> running during this time. Any help on this will be greatly appreciated.
>> (I did check the man pages and info pages without luck, though I don't
>> mind reading them if someone can point me to one that will answer this.)
>> You may also be able to tell by now that I'm fairly new at Linux, if you
>> need more info to be able to answer this, please let me know.
>
> Rerun the firewall configuration and select the port to be closed.
> You could tell your firewall to do a port forward too, in that way you
> don't need to run kr5 on another port, but just have a port open on the
> firewall.
Hmm, I might be able to get my firewall to do that, I have been useing
firestarter 0.9.3 because Firestarter 1.xx won't install on RH 8.0 and this
version of the firewall doesn't seem to like opening new ports and
occassionally it seems to sort of freeze into this strange state where the
router box that is home to the firewall has full internet access, the
firewall still logs everything, and the lan computers can still reach
everything on the lan except the router box but they have no access to the
internet, and the router box has no access to the lan... it's like eth1 got
unplugged. Strange, but I haven't found another solution, though suggestions
are welcome as long as they don't involve spending money I haven't got or
upgrading to fedora core or RH 9 because I'm not ready to try that one yet,
and the firewall/router box can't be a "dedicated" firewall/router because I
haven't got the extra computer to dedicate that way yet, though I may
eventually go that route when I can afford another box for the lan. (no
income at the moment)
> All to many groups selected, I general rule is only to have 3-5 groups
> (security was the one I saw which would have this as OT). Follow-up is
> generally quite bad, as everyone don't hang on the same newsgroups and
> therefore can't see if you have already got a reply as then they may not
> need to reply or they can see that the reply has somethign missing and
> clarify that. Then you have the case where you have a followup question,
> you won't get any reply from that person when they don't get your second
> question.
makes sense, but I honestly wasn't sure which newsgroups to post to for this
and thought I'd read something about using follow-ups to avoid being thought
of as trolling. *shrug*
-=Conner=-
--
Visit The Castle's Dungeon BBS at
telnet://tcdbbs.zapto.org for some family
fun in a medieval setting, or come test your mettle in the Land of Legends,
our MUD, at
telnet://tcdbbs.zapto.org:4000
For general info, visit
http://www.tcdbbs.zapto.org