Page 110 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110111112 ... LastLast
Results 1,091 to 1,100 of 1196

Thread: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

  1. #1091
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Beans
    45

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    thank you. i'll give a try, when i find the time.

  2. #1092
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Lightbulb Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    does anyone know if its possible to use a different url for moblock-nfq to fetch its blacklists from ? i just installed moblock-nfq and i get a error 171 no connection to bluetrack.co.uk

    i'm also having issues allowing me to *try* connecting to websites. all websites are blocked including google and ubuntuforums.org by default. i do want some level of "Moblock-functionality" to my web browsing, however i cannot access any websites whatsoever no matter how trivial they are.

    also oddly irc does work so there is some level of functionality when its enabled.

    under "WHITELIST IPS" in moblock.conf i added my router to try and achieve some level of functionality. i am not sure if it helped or not. please advise. moblock.conf:

    WHITE_IP_IN="192.168.1.1 "

    i realize that these questions are most likely redundant. i tried reading this thread but it was so big that there was no way i could make it to page 110. google didn't help either.

    would really love to get this working. also, i dont want to have to edit anything if possible like moblock.conf entries for forwarded ports on my static ip address. eg adding a line for every port/port range.

    thank you very much.
    Last edited by kraymore; February 11th, 2008 at 12:29 AM. Reason: more information

  3. #1093
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Beans
    1

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    Is it possible for Moblock to act like PeerGuardian for windows did?

    PG didn't attempt to block specific ports (that I know of I guess) and only blocked bad IPs from a list.

    nevermind Got it I guess .
    Last edited by coasted; February 13th, 2008 at 08:49 PM. Reason: dumb noobie ..

  4. #1094
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Beans
    47
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    hello moblockers-

    I was directed to this thread from this one:

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=699280

    anyway, long story short, the new moblock RC is causing all kinds of calamity. I'll help any way I can, however I fear my skills are limited to posting logs and scratching my head. (still learning!)

  5. #1095
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Miky Way Galaxy
    Beans
    3
    Distro
    Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    Same problem here I hope they get it resolved soon. I cannot even remove moblock via synaptic. I am thinking once I get it uninstalled I may quit using it all together. Moblock has been a huge pain to me. Seems like deluge with blocklist plugin is the way to go.
    Last edited by dynafish; February 17th, 2008 at 07:31 PM. Reason: syntax error

  6. #1096
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Beans
    770

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    About the bug in 0.9~rc2-1 (I'm the developer): Sorry for any inconvenience.
    I'm just releasing a fixed version.
    You can also fix it maually:
    Change the first line of /usr/bin/moblock-control to:
    Code:
    #!/bin/bash
    This error only occured in Gutsy, where /bin/sh is not directing to bash. So it did not happen here (Debian lenny)
    dynafish, I can't promise that this won't happen again. But since much of the development is done there's a big chance that this will not happen again. I'm thinking about making a seperate infrastructure for beta testers, but I doubt that I find the time for this. So, sorry, if you decide against moblock. The problems were all produced by me, not by the upstream author.
    Last edited by jre; February 17th, 2008 at 09:18 PM.
    Please post your logfiles and output of commands wrapped in code tags:
    Code:
    [code]output[/code]
    Co-author of PeerGuardian Linux (pgl). Maintainer of the pgl package repositories for Debian and Ubuntu.

  7. #1097
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Beans
    191

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    excellent that works perfectly now i have to go back to the Pheonix labs site and try to find my post lol

  8. #1098
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Beans
    770

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    The fixed version is out (0.9~rc2-2)

    BTW, the range merge bug is also fixed now! So this version uses multiple blocklists from bluetack.co.uk in peerguardian .p2p text format again. This means be careful with updating: accept all my changes to the conf files blocklists.list AND moblock.conf
    Please post your logfiles and output of commands wrapped in code tags:
    Code:
    [code]output[/code]
    Co-author of PeerGuardian Linux (pgl). Maintainer of the pgl package repositories for Debian and Ubuntu.

  9. #1099
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Beans
    47
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    thanks for the quick update, jre!

    something I noticed-

    when running "moblock-control test" I'm getting an error. here's the whole result:

    Testing MoBlock:

    CAUTION: This is just a simple test to check if MoBlock blocks outgoing
    connections. For this, one IP from your blocklist will be pinged. This test does
    not check if you have sane iptables rules or if your complete blocklist is in
    the correct format. Therefore success doesn't imply that everything is working
    as you expect it.

    You are marking blocked packets. This means you have to make sure that the
    marked packets are also blocked later. If you are using the default
    configuration and no other firewalls this will be the case.

    Also have a look at "moblock-control status" and test manually with traceroute.

    Trying to ping 12.21.127..6 from /etc/moblock/guarding.p2p ...
    * MoBlock did not block the IP.
    *
    * If you just started/reloaded MoBlock wait until it loaded completely.
    * This will be when /var/log/moblock.log shows the following line:
    * NFQUEUE: binding to queue '0'
    *
    * Some error occured with ping, no test result.

    Could the problem be that extra point in the IP address? there's two dots before the six: "Trying to ping 12.21.127..6"

  10. #1100
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Beans
    574
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

    Re: Moblock (peerguardian linux alternative)

    i decided to install 0.9-rc2-2 (amd64) and it was all a rather big mess and i was left without any connection, i guess eiter i did something wrong or its because its a beta. i got completely lost in the end. didnt really document what i did and id rather not try again until a final version is out and went back to my trusted old version. but nevermind that

    in any case i have a question regarding the conf file, it confused me especially these parts:
    Code:
    # Configure what happens to matched packets (IP in list)
    # 0 - DROP them (like in MoBlock 0.8)
    # 1 - MARK and RETURN them (default)
    REJECT="1"
    
    # Set the corresponding MARK
    REJECT_MARK="10"
    
    # Configure what happens to the marked packets
    # This section works only for IPTABLES_ACTIVATION="1"
    # Valid values are all iptables targets. There's no check for sane values.
    # INPUT packets are always drop'ped
    REJECT_OUT="REJECT"
    REJECT_FW="DROP"
    i dont really understand how this works, can u shed some light on it? does moblock not reject the packages anymore but instead mark them and pass them on to iptables which then will block the connection? if so will it silently reject the package or send a message ?

    would be very happy if u could explain this and give some examples perhaps
    hardy 64 bit

Page 110 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110111112 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •