Re: [SLE] Baffled newbie trying to reach Win 98 LAN (was NT)
On Wednesday 17 April 2002 16:09, Peter Lewis wrote: - If you run the ping in a DOS box, select msdos prompt from the "start" menu - tree. Besides this it will report failures as they happen. - Ran an MS-DOS window (File->Run-> command), then ran ping. 1) All Win 98 SE boxes can ping my dual boot when in SuSE Linux 7.3 Pro. 2) The Win 98 SE boxes can't ping each other (timeout). - If you are unable to ping the win98 machines from any other machine I have - to - ask have you got the tcp/ip protocol installed properly on the win98 - machines? I believe so, but note that alll Win 98 SE boxes have Norton Personal Firewall installed. - Getting some base lines set, can you access the internet from the win98 - machines, web pages etc? Can you access the internet from the SuSE machine - (I - recall that you have already said that this works)? Can you ping a - known host - on the internet from any machine? Yes to all. A ping to Turing.suse.de 213.95.15.200 is successful. - Now try to ping the router from the SuSE machine and then from the win98 - machines (we have to hope that the router has a ping response built in :-). - If the SuSE machine gets a ping response and the win98 machines do not, yet - the win98 machines can access the internet, then you will have to check the - tcp/ip stack within the win98 box (afraid this is outside of my experience, - never had that problem:-). On the other hand, if the win98 machines have - access to the internet and to the router but no access to any other host on - the local net, then the problem would seem to lie in the settings within - the - win98 machine. As you know that the ip adresses are correct, check on - the net - mask, the stack uses this to see if an address is on the local net - or if it - has to use a gateway. The gateway would be the router so that - should be set - properly. 4) Pinging the router from any Win 98 box is successful. Here we come into that issue of the firewall on the individual Win 98 SE boxes. Could this be the problem and how? After all, I can access their drives from my box when in Win 2k. - Names serving can use the BIND package in the SuSE machine. The idea is that - the name server keeps track of the association between the host names and - their ip addresses. Routers and other DNS servers pass this information among - themselves in RIP packages. The main problem in your case is that the router - probably provides access to your ISP's DNS server when it sets the ip address - in each of your machines when they come on line. Your machines then use the - name server to associate web urls with their ip addresses. You type - www.suse.de it finds the address 213.95.15.200. On your SuSE machine open a - konsole and try: - - peter@brehat:~> host www.suse.de peter@brehat:~> host www.suse.de bash: peter@brehat:~: command not found - www.suse.de is a nickname for Turing.suse.de - Turing.suse.de has address 213.95.15.200 Ping works fine. - Turing.suse.de mail is handled (pri=42) by mail.suse.de Fine - Turing.suse.de mail is handled (pri=69) by ns1.suse.com Fine - Turing.suse.de mail is handled (pri=96) by mail.noris.net Fine - peter@brehat:~> bash: syntax error near unexpected token `peter@brehat:~>' - There are more complex commands on the SuSE package (maybe there is a host - type command on win98, never found it myself). - - Finally, does your router have a web server for administration, many do. If - it does try to access it from each machine in turn (one at a time). Yes it does. Yes I did and yes, it works. Cheers, Brian
Back to a clean slate. You have complete tcp/ip function out of any box to the internet or to the router or to the SuSE machine. The win98 machines are blocking any tcp/ip incoming but your problem is that the win2k software can gain access. Maybe this is because it is not using tcp/ip to gain access. Do you have netbui protocol stack on all the win boxes? If you do then it is the firewall that is stopping any "first time" access to your win98 boxes. It is probably set up to allow some of the streaming media packages to establish a connection, but they (Norton) quite correctly assumed that mechanisms like ping and SMB over tcp/ip would not be required by 99% of the users. This leaves you in the position of the minority, not comfortable. The options are twofold, either you conform to the majority and behave yourself as they would like you to, or you put up with a less than optimal setup for the sake of being an individual. Are you sheep or tiger? Before I get abuse from the sheep-lovers of this world, there is nothing wrong with being a sheep, sheep have a major part to play in this world. Without sheep we would not have Lancashire hot-pot or even lamb chops. We would all be wearing these so-called "fleece" jackets/gillets etc. Getting back to the serious matter, does your router permit incoming connecttions to be routed to boxes on your local net? The point is that your local net may not be reachable from the internet without your explicit intervention. I use a Cisco box to handle my internet connection and without my setting up a route, any attempt to open a port from the internet is blocked. The Cisco box permits me to set up a tunnel for port connections from the internet to a specified host on my local network. If you are behind a address translation firewall it _should_ be impossible for crackers on the internet to gain access to hosts on your local network. If this is the case then your Norton firewalls are rather redundant. Peter
On Thursday 18 April 2002 03:52, Peter Lewis wrote: - Back to a clean slate. - - You have complete tcp/ip function out of any box to the internet or to the - router or to the SuSE machine. The win98 machines are blocking any tcp/ip - incoming but your problem is that the win2k software can gain access. - Did I post something that inadvertently gave you this impression? I hope not. I think this is probably because this thread has been dragging on sooo long ;-) The situation is that all of the boxes, Win 98 and WIn 2k/SUSE dual boot box are all on a LAN. My problem has been trying to find/mount the Win 98 boxes with SuSE. If I am to describe my problem in one sentence, it is that don't understand why I can't find/mount the Win 98 boxes in SuSE, when I can if I boot into Win 2k Pro. - - Maybe this is because it is not using tcp/ip to gain access. Do you have - netbui protocol stack on all the win boxes? - I am not sure this is relevant right now. Let's see the response to the rest of the mail, before I answer this. - - If you do then it is the firewall that is stopping any "first time" access - to - your win98 boxes. It is probably set up to allow some of the streaming - media - packages to establish a connection, but they (Norton) quite - correctly assumed - that mechanisms like ping and SMB over tcp/ip would not - be required by 99% of - the users. This leaves you in the position of the - minority, not comfortable. - The options are twofold, either you conform to - the majority and behave - yourself as they would like you to, or you put up - with a less than optimal - setup for the sake of being an individual. - The other responses I have received on this issue clearly point to this being a firewall issue. - - Are you sheep or tiger? - To mix metaphors, I grabbed the bull by the horns, rather than just disabling the firewalls didnt I? No friggin firewall is going to tell me what to do ;-) - - Before I get abuse from the sheep-lovers of this world, there is nothing - wrong with being a sheep, sheep have a major part to play in this world. - Without sheep we would not have Lancashire hot-pot or even lamb chops. We - would all be wearing these so-called "fleece" jackets/gillets etc. - - Getting back to the serious matter, does your router permit incoming - connecttions to be routed to boxes on your local net? The point is that your - local net may not be reachable from the internet without your explicit - intervention. I use a Cisco box to handle my internet connection and without - my setting up a route, any attempt to open a port from the internet is - blocked. The Cisco box permits me to set up a tunnel for port connections - from the internet to a specified host on my local network. - This is where I think we misunderstand each other. I am not trying to VPN or "tunnel" or anything like that. all boxes are connected physically to Ethernet cable and all reside in my house. - - If you are behind a address translation firewall it _should_ be impossible - for crackers on the internet to gain access to hosts on your local network. - If this is the case then your Norton firewalls are rather redundant. - Others have expressed this opinion as well. This may be what I need to do, if nothing else, to lighten the load of all the good people on the list ;-) The reality is that my family doesn't know that much about computers. They rely on the anti-virus software to scan 100% of the time for them. We all know this isn't the case. As I don't have time to do it everyday for them, I decided that the firewalls would help by at least preventing the virus etc. crap from getting passed through the LAN. This has as we see, had unfortunate side effects. I won't beat this topic to death however. If there isn't anyone that has a solution for SuSE passing through the firewalls using smbclient, I will disable the firewalls and concentrate on the problems I have when the firewall is disabled, i.e.: "I was successful in getting LinNeighborhood to display the computers (with the firewalls disabled) after a "modprobe smbfs". However, when I tried to mount one at /home/usr/mnt/<host>, I received the following error, despite having installed all of the smbclient package: "smbmnt must be installed suid root for direct user mounts (500,500) smbmnt failed: 1"" Cheers, Brian
On Thursday 18 April 2002 2:48 am, Brian Durant wrote:
"I was successful in getting LinNeighborhood to display the computers (with the firewalls disabled) after a "modprobe smbfs". However, when I tried to mount one at /home/usr/mnt/<host>, I received the following error, despite having installed all of the smbclient package:
"smbmnt must be installed suid root for direct user mounts (500,500) smbmnt failed: 1""
I have already explained in my earlier post what you you need to do to get around this message. Why don't you try it and see? Kevin
On Friday 19 April 2002 02:14, Kevin Donnelly wrote: - I have already explained in my earlier post what you you need to do to get - around this message. Why don't you try it and see? Woops, sorry. This one must have snuck by me. I did try it and it did work <sheepish grin>. Thanks for all the help from all of those that participated in this thread. Things seem to be working now, at least with the shared resources. Cheers, Brian
participants (3)
-
Brian Durant -
Kevin Donnelly -
Peter Lewis