From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 16 15:32:16 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3469437B401 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.241.160.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFE543F85 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 15:32:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stacey@vickiandstacey.com) Received: from [192.168.1.8] (81-86-129-77.dsl.pipex.com [81.86.129.77]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C55160009AE; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 23:32:13 +0100 (BST) From: Stacey Roberts To: Tuc In-Reply-To: <200304162213.h3GMDtVI002954@himinbjorg.ttsg.com> References: <200304162213.h3GMDtVI002954@himinbjorg.ttsg.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1050532338.695.148.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 16 Apr 2003 23:32:18 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Changes in ssh? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: stacey@vickiandstacey.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:32:16 -0000 Hello, On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 23:13, Tuc wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Thanks for the reply.., > > > > On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 22:47, Tuc wrote: > > > > ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host > > > > > > > TCPWRAPPERS/hosts.allow is the first thing I think of when > > > it does this. > > > > > > > I thought of this., > > > > > > There is the possibility that its getting caught on one of the > other things above there. The new format seems to go incrementally. Use > tcpdmatch and see if it will tell you what line causes the hit/miss: > > himinbjorg# tcpdmatch sshd valhalla > warning: sshd: no such process name in /etc/inetd.conf > warning: valhalla: hostname alias > warning: (official name: valhalla.ttsg.com) > client: hostname valhalla.ttsg.com > client: address 216.231.111.14 > server: process sshd > matched: /etc/hosts.allow line 23 > option: allow > access: granted > > (Thats the ALL:ALL:allow... taking that out :) > > himinbjorg# tcpdmatch sshd valhalla > warning: sshd: no such process name in /etc/inetd.conf > warning: valhalla: hostname alias > warning: (official name: valhalla.ttsg.com) > client: hostname valhalla.ttsg.com > client: address 216.231.111.14 > server: process sshd > matched: /etc/hosts.allow line 82 > option: severity auth.info > option: twist /bin/echo "You are not welcome to use sshd from valhalla.ttsg.com." > access: delegated > > Fails otherwise. Okay.., forgot about tcpdmatch.., Here's what I get on the new (host0) box: warning: sshd: no such process name in /etc/inetd.conf warning: : hostname alias warning: (official name: ) client: hostname client: address 192.168.1.7 server: process sshd matched: /etc/hosts.allow line 32 option: deny access: denied And here's what's returned from the source (host1) box: warning: sshd: no such process name in /etc/inetd.conf client: hostname client: address 192.168.1.8 server: process sshd matched: /etc/hosts.allow line 30 option: deny access: denied And another host2 on the network: warning: sshd: no such process name in /etc/inetd.conf client: hostname client: address 192.168.1.10 server: process sshd matched: /etc/hosts.allow line 30 option: deny access: denied Note the differences in the output from the new box and others - host1 & host2.., Is there anything in this difference? All but one box is running 4.8 Stable, the odd one out is running 4.8-RC, dated March 22, but running the same version of ssh as the others.., Regards, Stacey > > Tuc/TTSG Internet Services, Inc. -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com