Re: UNABLE TO CONNECT REMOTELY TO port 5436 - CRITICAL

From: Jacques Lamothe <JLamothe(at)allconnect(dot)com>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: UNABLE TO CONNECT REMOTELY TO port 5436 - CRITICAL
Date: 2011-12-27 19:48:29
Message-ID: A464248CE14E60408AC030D3CD1790BA02720D@ACMAILNODE01.allconnect.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Correct, I'll take off

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 2:46 PM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] UNABLE TO CONNECT REMOTELY TO port 5436 - CRITICAL

On 12/27/11 11:34 AM, Jacques Lamothe wrote:
> Output
>
> [root(at)vpdb1 ~]# iptables -L -vn
> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 44094 packets, 6327K bytes)
> pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
> 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:5436
>
> Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
> pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
>
> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 43575 packets, 6143K bytes)
> pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
> [root(at)vpdb1 ~]#

it appears there's no iptables based firewall configured at all, the
default policy is ACCEPT, so there's really no point in that rule for 5436

--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jacques Lamothe 2011-12-27 19:49:17 Re: UNABLE TO CONNECT REMOTELY TO port 5436 - CRITICAL
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2011-12-27 19:47:50 Re: UNABLE TO CONNECT REMOTELY TO port 5436 - CRITICAL