I'm trying to access the Cassandra browser terminal but the reported IP is unreachable.
I'm following the instructions to install Cassandra on VirtualBox here, and have the following configuration:
And Cassandra appears to start up appropriately:
But I'm unable to hit the provided IP (10.0.0.2)
Any idea what's wrong?
Ok, so I went to Install Cassandra OVA on VirtualBox and followed the instructions (like you did). And it didn't work for me, either.
What did work, was messing with the network settings and ultimately switching to a "Bridged" network adapter:
This put the CassandraVM on my internal network, and I was then able to reach everything from an internal IP (192.168.0.103, in my case).
Also, not sure if it made a difference, but I set Promiscuous Mode to "Allow All."
Had the same issue. Here's what worked for me (the solution came from this VirtualBox forum post).
In Host-only Network Details select the Adapter tab and change the ipv4 address into something inside the 10.0.0.x range. I think you should avoid conflicts with settings in the DHCP Server tab, thus a suitable choice would be 10.0.0.254, for example.
Also, I think you should configure your virtual machine's network settings this way:
Attach to: select Host-only Adapter
Name: select vboxnet0
I've also set Allow All for Promiscous Mode, but I don't know if it's strictly required.
Related
We have a PostgreSQL cluster with 2 instances, one of them primary and other one is primary. Both of them are running on Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 8.5 (Ootpa). In order unify connection string we use virtual IP.
We have problem with managing virtual IP. We are managing VIP manually.
On the standby node content of my /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:1 :
NAME="eth0:1"
DEVICE="eth0:1"
ONBOOT=no
NETBOOT=no
BOOTPROTO=none
IPADDR=$My-VIP
NETMASK="255.255.255.240"
TYPE=Ethernet
PEERDNS=no
When I reboot this standby server it tries to start "eth0:1" interface even though "ONBOOT=no" parameter and that cause trouble because same VIP, "$My-VIP", is already taken by primary instance.
Is there any other configuration that I should check?
If you need extra information or logs please let me know I will provide it as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance!
According to news that I got from my ex colleagues it is because of base interface, "eth0". After reboot eth0 starts all interfaces that depends on it. Only way to get rid of this commenting IPADDR out for eth0:1.
I just installed PFSense in my network and configured the pfBlockerNG and Snort package. Its all running fine, except I have noticed by webConfiguraion GUI is accessible from the internet through my public WAN address. I have tried adding a rule to disallow anything other than LAN. I tried blocking traffic from any source to 'WAN net' on 443/80, but that didn't worked as well. Essentially, I want the GUI to be assessible within my LAN network and not from anywhere else.
What am I missing? Any help really appreciated.
PS: My firewall rules are pretty standard, default installed rules and the rules added by pfBlockerNG.
Note that once you install Pfsense it adds a "Default allow LAN" to LAN interface but there is no such rule on WAN interface.
It means you can access everything from LAN, that is, you can access WAN (and so the internet) but the access from WAN is blocked. Fortunately there is no way to access GUI from WAN by default.
This configuration is pretty the same the default config you find in a home/conventional router.
I advise you to try Pfsense for a while before installing packages.
I want to install Damn Vulnerable Web Application (DVWA) on VirtualBox, so I downloaded the DVWA.iso and I'm following this tutorial for its installation.
At step 9, they say to choose internal network, but I don't really understand why (is it a security problem if I don't choose this option?). Because if I select internal network after I've got an IP like 10.0.something and when I try to connect from my computer (not the VM) to 10.0.something/login.php that doesn't work. But if I select bridge networking, I've got an IP like 192.168.something and it works.
Could you explain me why is it important to choose internal network, and why that doesn't work when I choose this?
Internal network on VirtualBox creates a network between boxes on the same host . I can't see the next steps of the tutorial you linked but my guess is that it will ask you to install Kali (or similar distro) on another box on that same host. This is what most people do.
Setting 'internal network' allows the 2 machines to talk to each other without any contact with the outside.
It is considered a security measure because the DVWA is a vulnerable machine so some people think that you shouldn't be giving access to internet to it, but I guess it's more about 'best practice' than a real security risk because in most cases firewalls, routers and ISP will prevent outside attackers to connect directly to that machine in any case.
Anyways, if you are using another computer on the same network to connect to DVWA you should be ok in using a 'bridged' connection on VirtualBox (this it will give to the DVWA an IP sitting on the same network of the host and of your computer). In NAT mode VirtualBox acts like a router, it may still be a good solution for you but not sure if the box is reachable from other computers as I think VB settings may affect this case.
If you are using instead the Host as a penetration testing machine, 'host only' should be good to allow the host and the VM to talk.
Try to put both of the machines on the NAT so that you can ping onto the dvwa from wherever you're doing the hacking from! so essentially both of the machines should be on NAT setting if the they're both on a virtual machine.
I'm trying FBCTF competition (https://github.com/facebook/fbctf)
My problem is that, when I try to add a base level, using a VBox machine, when I try to acces to this machine's network ip, I always get the FBCTF index.php.
Networks IP is 192.168.56.1, so I use nmap -p- -A 192.168.56.0/24 for scanning the box, but cant find the correct one.
Someone knows why? I'm missing something on the port scan?
Thank you.
Already works. FBCTF is using a NAT, so all trafic is coming to the computer is being redirected to this IP.
Removing the NAT and using Bridge, solves the problem.
I'm setting up a linux server in a VM for my development.
Previously I've had PHP, MySQL etc etc all installed locally on my Mac. Apart from being a security risk, it's a drag to maintain and keep up to date, and there's a risk that an OS upgrade will wipe part of your setup out as the changes you make are fairly non-standard.
Having the entire server contained within a VM makes it easily upgradable and portable between machines. It means I can have the same configuration as the destination server and with shared folders even if the VM gets corrupted my work is safe on the host machine.
Previously with the local installation I was able to develop on convenient URLs like http://site.dev. I'd quite like to carry this over to the VM way of development but I'm struggling to figure out how, if it's possible at all.
Here's the problem:
In Bridged mode, the VM is part of the same network as the host. This is great but I can't choose a fixed IP address as I may be joining other networks and that address may be taken already. I'd like a consistent way of addressing my VM.
In NAT mode I can't directly address the VM without using port forwarding. I can use http://site.dev if I use the hosts file to forward that to localhost and then localhost:8080 forwards to the vm:80. The trouble is I have to access http://site.dev:8080 which is inconvenient for URL construction.
Does anyone know a way around this? I'm using ubuntu server and virtualbox.
Thanks!
The answer is to define a separate host-only network adapter and use that for host->guest communication.
You can do this by powering down the guest and adding the adapter in the VM settings. Once that's done you can boot the guest again and configure the new network interface however suits you best. I chose a fixed IP address in an unused range.