[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

TCP wrapper and hostname issue



Hi there guys. I am new to the list, but have done a search for this and cant seem to find any information. In fact its being annoying me for some time.

 

I have a running Debian box (4.0) that is used as a CVS server. Everything is working fine on the system, except the tcp wrapper logging. Here is an example from syslog:

 

Mar  5 11:18:56 buzz runcvs[1526]: connect from 172.16.160.202 (172.16.160.202)

Mar  5 11:18:56 buzz runcvs[1529]: connect from 172.16.165.144 (172.16.165.144)

Mar  5 11:18:56 buzz runcvs[1531]: connect from 172.16.65.1 (172.16.65.1)

Mar  5 11:18:56 buzz runcvs[1535]: connect from 172.16.165.144 (172.16.165.144)

 

As you can see it is using IPs rather than hostnames. As our company uses DHCP the logging of IPs can turn out to be quite useless to me a lot of the time, as machines will have changed. I just don’t understand why it isn’t logging hostnames however.  When I do a nslookup:

 

 

buzz:/var/log# nslookup 172.16.160.202

Server:         172.16.164.100

Address:        172.16.164.100#53

 

202.160.16.172.in-addr.arpa     name = savio.curamsoftware.com.

 

 

 

The runcvs is just this:

/usr/bin/cvs \

    -T /cvs/tmp \

    --allow-root=/cvs/AppDev \

(with a few more repositories in here)

    pserver

 

 

The machine is not using NIS or any other domain structure, but if nslookup is working, surely it should report the name of the connecting machines?

 

Any help or pointers will be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Brian


The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance
on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
addressee please contact the sender and dispose of this e-mail. Thank you.

Reply to: