potentiallynotfelix

joined 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

I ended up just installing Alma Linux again. Thank you very much for your help.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DO NOT follow my lead, my backup solution is scuffed at best.

3:

I have:

  • RAID1 array w/ 2 drives
  • Photos on the device that took them
  • Photos on a random old hard drive pulled from an ancient apple mac.

2:

I've got a hard drive and flash memory?

1:

Don't have this at all, the closest is that my phone is off-site half of the day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

yes, the host is 192.168.86.73 and it has that dnat rule.

And from the guest

Assuming you meant from the host, I am sshing directly to 192.168.101.4 instead of to 192.168.86.73:2222.

The third paragraph doesn't make sense to me. I am using port 22 on my host(192.168.86.73) for it's own ssh.

tcpdump returns this when I ssh to port 2222:

20:32:29.957942 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 64, id 28091, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP (6), length 60)
    192.168.86.23.53434 > 192.168.86.73.2222: Flags [S], cksum 0x5d75 (correct), seq 1900319834, win 64240, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3627223725 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

192.168.101.4 is the alma guest. It's got port 22 open and I can ssh into it from the host computer.

iptables -nvL on Alma returns:

Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

I believe this means it automatically accepts connections.

IMO this makes it unlikely that the guest is the issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

pretty sure thats just on mobile, could be wrong tho

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

if it's actually proton.me that's an official url.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (9 children)

twitter is fucked and requires a login for everything, but reddit seems to work fine without a login.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

ssh -v returns:

OpenSSH_9.2p1 Debian-2+deb12u4, OpenSSL 3.0.15 3 Sep 2024
debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config
debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 19: include /etc/ssh/ssh_config.d/*.conf matched no files
debug1: /etc/ssh/ssh_config line 21: Applying options for *
debug1: Connecting to 192.168.86.73 [192.168.86.73] port 2222.
debug1: connect to address 192.168.86.73 port 2222: Connection refused
ssh: connect to host 192.168.86.73 port 2222: Connection refused

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

No firewalls on the client, but iptables on host and guest. guest has no rules just allow all, and host rules are listed in the post.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward returns:

net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1

So I'm pretty sure that this is already enabled. Thanks for your answer!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

From the iptables manpage:

--to offset
    Set the offset from which it starts looking for any matching. If not passed, default is the packet size. 

...

--to-destination ipaddr-ipaddr
    Address range to round-robin over. 

This seems to do something, but the port still appears as closed.

iptables -nvL returns:

Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 369 packets, 54387 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    5   300 ACCEPT     6    --  *      virbr1  0.0.0.0/0            192.168.101.4        tcp dpt:22
   84  6689 ACCEPT     0    --  *      br-392a16e9359d  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED
    7   418 DOCKER     0    --  *      br-392a16e9359d  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
  146  9410 ACCEPT     0    --  br-392a16e9359d !br-392a16e9359d  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
    0     0 ACCEPT     0    --  br-392a16e9359d br-392a16e9359d  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination                    

I've omitted some listings that were labelled as docker.

iptables -t nat -nvL returns:

Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 626 packets, 90758 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    5   300 DNAT       6    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:2222 to:192.168.101.4:22

Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 154 packets, 12278 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 DOCKER     0    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0           !127.0.0.0/8          ADDRTYPE match dst-type LOCAL

Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 290 packets, 22404 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
    0     0 MASQUERADE  0    --  *      !br-392a16e9359d  172.18.0.0/16        0.0.0.0/0           

I've also omitted some listings that were labelled as docker.

After running the ssh command, the bytes seem to increase. After 1 ssh attempt:

    7   420 DNAT       6    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:2222 to:192.168.101.4:22

After another ssh attempt:

    8   480 DNAT       6    --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0            tcp dpt:2222 to:192.168.101.4:22
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Yes I learned at a very young age.

view more: ‹ prev next ›