Search Results

Search found 5390 results on 216 pages for 'ssl vpn'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 111/216 | < Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >

  • Splitting Company into two separate companies with duplicate IT infrastructure. Need Reccomendation

    - by Shanghai360
    We are dividing our company into two companies. All employees will be shared across both the companies. We have separate Accounting systems, email and other applications for both companies. There are two physical offices located within the same city block. And identical infrastructure at both. Money is not a limiting factor. How would you design the network, remote access, and configure the workstations? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • certificate error while subdomain forwarding

    - by rahulchandran
    I have a website, call it http://sub.example.com, hosted on, say, 72.xx.xx.x. There is a certificate for https://sub.example.com. Now I go into the DNS management tool in my hosting provider, and I set up the standard subdomain forwarding wherein https://sub.example.com forwards to 72.xx.xx.x. Now when I try to browse to https://sub.example.com, I get a certificate error saying it is for the wrong website. I have also tried forwarding http://sub.example.com to 72.xx.xx.x, and tried it with domain masking in both cases. I am still getting the certificate error no matter what. Additional wrinkle: if someone types in https://sub.example.com then the domain forwarding does not seem to work and IE just spins endlesssly and finally fails. How can I domain forward the https://sub.example.com to 72.xx.xx.x?

    Read the article

  • One user sometimes gets an unknown certificate error opening Outlook

    - by Chris
    Let me clarify a little. This isn't an unknown certificate error it's an unknown certificate error in so much as I can't figure out where the certificate comes from. This happens on a Win 7 Enterprise machine connecting to Exchange 2010 with Outlook 2010. The error he gets is that the root is not trusted because it's a self-signed cert. Take a look at this screenshot because even if I had generated this myself I wouldn't have put "SomeOrganizationalUnit" or "SomeCity" or "SomeState", etc. (Red block covers our domain name.) I'm a little concerned this is a symptom of a security breach. Exchange 2010 has three certificates installed but none of them are this certificate. They all have different expiration dates (one is expired) and different meta-data. edit: There are two scenarios that I see the certificate warning and one of them I can reliably repeat. When the user leaves his computer on over night Outlook pops the Security Warning window. I don't know what time this happens. Using Outlook Anywhere if I connect to Exchange externally via a cellular USB modem the Security Warning window will appear every time I close and reopen Outlook. Whether I say Yes or No does not make a difference on whether or not I can connect to Exchange and send/receive email. In other words, I can always connect to Exchange. I've checked my two Exchange servers and my Cisco router for a certificate that matches this one and I can't find it. edit 2: Here is a screenshot of the Security Alert window. (I've been calling it Security Warning... My mistake.) edit 3: I stopped seeing this error several weeks ago but I can't tie it to any single event (because I just sort of realized that warning had stopped showing up) but I think I found the source of the certificate. Last week I found out that the certificate on our website DomainA.com was invalid. I knew that our web admin had installed a valid certificate so when I look into the problem I found out I was being presented with the invalid certificate that this posting is in regards to. The Exchange server's domain is mail.DomainA.com so I can only guess that Outlook was passing this invalid certificate through as it did some kind of check on DomainA.com. This issue is still a mystery because the certificate warning stopped appearing several weeks ago whereas the invalid certificate issue on the website was only fixed last week. It ended up being a problem with the website control panel. The valid certificate was installed but not being served for some reason and instead the self-signed cert was being served.

    Read the article

  • Apache Server Status page in port 8443

    - by batman
    I'm very new to apache. I tried to enable the server status page of apache. I added the status.conf and status.load to mods-enabled directory. I changed the config of apache2.conf to include all mods-enabled directory. This is the config of staus.conf: <IfModule mod_status.c> # # Allow server status reports generated by mod_status, # with the URL of http://servername/server-status # Uncomment and change the "192.0.2.0/24" to allow access from other hosts. # <Location /server-status> SetHandler server-status Order deny,allow Deny from all Allow from 127.0.0.1 ::1 # Allow from 192.0.2.0/24 </Location> # Keep track of extended status information for each request ExtendedStatus On # Determine if mod_status displays the first 63 characters of a request or # the last 63, assuming the request itself is greater than 63 chars. # Default: Off #SeeRequestTail On <IfModule mod_proxy.c> # Show Proxy LoadBalancer status in mod_status ProxyStatus On </IfModule> </IfModule> The default settings. I restarted my server. I'm redirecting all ports to 8443. Which in turn turns my requests to localhost:8443/server-status. Which does throw an 404 error. Are there any way to get around this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2010 certificate errors

    - by Frederik Nielsen
    I have a problem with my newly setup Exchange environment for our hosted customers. First off, when configuring the outlook client, it gives a certificate warning although the certificate has been bought and setup. I am using a setup like this: autodiscover.CUSTOMERDOMAIN.TLD CNAME autodiscover.exchange.COMPANYDOMAIN.TLD (Companydomain is our company that hosts the exchange servers, customerdomain being the customers domain) Shouldn't that work? I know that Microsoft does something like that for Office365, but I really don't think they buy a certificate for every customer.. So I guess some redirection should be setup somehow - any guidance? Next thing: When we accept that error, and move on to actually starting Outlook, it states that the certificate is not valid for the RPC proxy server exchange.COMPANYDOMAIN.TLD - this domain is not right, as that domain is not included in the certificate. I would instead like this domain to be mail.exchange.COMPANYDOMAIN.TLD I tried to run this script setting both internal and external URL's to be the same, with no luck. Any guidance on this one? I am running Exchange 2010 SP2, with CAS, HT and MBX split up on 3 different servers.

    Read the article

  • SSLVerifyClient optional with location-based exceptions

    - by Ian Dunn
    I have a site that requires authentication in order to access certain directories, but not others. (The "directories" are really just rewrite rules that all pass through /index.php) In order to authenticate, the user can either login with a standard username/password, or submit a client-side x509 certificate. So, Apache's vhost conf looks something like this: SSLCACertificateFile /etc/pki/CA/certs/redacted-ca.crt SSLOptions +ExportCertData +StdEnvVars SSLVerifyClient none SSLVerifyDepth 1 <LocationMatch "/(foo-one|foo-two|foo-three)"> SSLVerifyClient optional </LocationMatch> That works fine, but then large file uploads fail because of the behavior documented in bug 12355. The workaround for that is to set SSLVerifyClient require (or optional) as the default, so now the conf looks like this SSLCACertificateFile /etc/pki/CA/certs/redacted-ca.crt SSLOptions +ExportCertData +StdEnvVars SSLVerifyClient optional SSLVerifyDepth 1 <LocationMatch "/(bar-one|bar-two|bar-three)"> SSLVerifyClient none </LocationMatch> That fixes the upload problem, but the SSLVerifyClient none doesn't work for bar-one, bar-two, etc. Those directories are still prompted to present a certificate. Additionally, I also need the root URL to accessible without the user being prompted for a certificate. I'm afraid that will cancel out the workaround, though.

    Read the article

  • Create a tunnel to my dedicated windows server

    - by Mobiz
    I have a Win 2008 dedicated server. The remote access for MSSQL db is disabled. However I want to connect to it during development from my system. I need to create something like a tunnel from my lap so as to access it. I don't have static IP. Another reason for mentioning about creating tunnel is that my server IP has been whitelisted with other server. The data must originate from my dedicated server then only I can do the testing.

    Read the article

  • How would you change a home wireless router with a self-signed admin site certificate to be more secure?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • openvpn port 53 bypasses allows restrictions ( find similar ports)

    - by user181216
    scenario of wifi : i'm using wifi in hostel which having cyberoam firewall and all the computer which uses that access point. that access point have following configuration default gateway : 192.168.100.1 primary dns server : 192.168.100.1 here, when i try to open a website the cyberoam firewall redirects the page to a login page (with correct login information, we can browse internet else not), and also website access and bandwidth limitations. once i've heard about pd-proxy which finds open port and tunnels through a port ( usually udp 53). using pd-proxy with UDP 53 port, i can browse internet without login, even bandwidth limit is bypassed !!! and another software called openvpn with connecting openvpn server through udp port 53 i can browse internet without even login into the cyberoam. both of softwares uses port 53, specially openvpn with port 53, now i've a VPS server in which i can install openvpn server and connect through the VPS server to browse internet. i know why that is happening because with pinging on some website(eb. google.com) it returns it's ip address that means it allows dns queries without login. but the problem is there is already DNS service is running on the VPS server on port 53. and i can only use 53 port to bypass the limitations as i think. and i can not run openvpn service on my VPS server on port 53. so how to scan the wifi for vulnerable ports like 53 so that i can figure out the magic port and start a openvpn service on VPS on the same port. ( i want to scan similar vulnerable ports like 53 on cyberoam in which the traffic can be tunneled, not want to scan services running on ports). improvement of the question with retags and edits are always welcomed... NOTE : all these are for Educational purpose only, i'm curious about network related knowledge.....

    Read the article

  • openvpn port 53 bypasses allows restrictions ( find similar ports)

    - by user181216
    scenario of wifi : i'm using wifi in hostel which having cyberoam firewall and all the computer which uses that access point. that access point have following configuration default gateway : 192.168.100.1 primary dns server : 192.168.100.1 here, when i try to open a website the cyberoam firewall redirects the page to a login page (with correct login information, we can browse internet else not), and also website access and bandwidth limitations. once i've heard about pd-proxy which finds open port and tunnels through a port ( usually udp 53). using pd-proxy with UDP 53 port, i can browse internet without login, even bandwidth limit is bypassed !!! and another software called openvpn with connecting openvpn server through udp port 53 i can browse internet without even login into the cyberoam. both of softwares uses port 53, specially openvpn with port 53, now i've a VPS server in which i can install openvpn server and connect through the VPS server to browse internet. i know why that is happening because with pinging on some website(eb. google.com) it returns it's ip address that means it allows dns queries without login. but the problem is there is already DNS service is running on the VPS server on port 53. and i can only use 53 port to bypass the limitations as i think. and i can not run openvpn service on my VPS server on port 53. so how to scan the wifi for vulnerable ports like 53 so that i can figure out the magic port and start a openvpn service on VPS on the same port. ( i want to scan similar vulnerable ports like 53 on cyberoam in which the traffic can be tunneled, not want to scan services running on ports). improvement of the question with retags and edits are always welcomed... NOTE : all these are for Educational purpose only, i'm curious about network related knowledge.....

    Read the article

  • Exchange - inbound email only works from some servers

    - by Kryptonite
    I am having a problem where inbound mail from outside only works when sent from certain hosts. For example, when I send myself an email from my personal gmail account all is well, as the logs show: 2012-09-05 18:14:16 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 EHLO 250 - - 2012-09-05 18:14:16 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 STARTTLS 220 - - 2012-09-05 18:14:16 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 STARTTLS 220 - - 2012-09-05 18:14:16 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 EHLO 250 - - 2012-09-05 18:14:16 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 MAIL 250 - - 2012-09-05 18:14:16 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 RCPT 250 - - 2012-09-05 18:14:48 209.85.223.175 mail-ie0-f175.google.com SMTPSVC1 MAILSVR 192.168.1.79 0 QUIT 240 - - However, if I sent from my personal Yahoo account, I get this response: Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <[email protected]>: Remote host said: 530 5.7.0 Must issue a STARTTLS command first [MAIL_FROM] (NB: Nothing appeared in the smtp log for this message.) Any suggestions where to start looking? EDIT ---- I don't know if it matters, but the certificate I am using for TLS is self signed.

    Read the article

  • Host couldn't be reached by domain name, only by IP: Apache's fault?

    - by MaxArt
    I have this Windows Server 2003 R2 32 bit machine running Apache 2.4.2 with OpenSSL 1.0.1c and PHP 5.4.5 via mod_fcgid 2.3.7. This config worked just fine for some hours, but then the site couldn't be reached with its domain name, say www.example.com, but it could be still reached by its IP address. In particular, while https://www.example.com/ yielded a connection error, http://123.1.2.3/ worked just fine. Yes, first https then http. Error and access logs were clean, i.e. they showed no signs of problems. Just the usual messages, that were interrupted while the site couldn't be reached. After some investigation, a simple restart of Apache solved the problem. Unfortunately, I didn't have the chance to test if https://123.1.2.3/ worked as well, or if http://www.example.com/ was still redirected to https as usual. So, has anyone have any idea of what happened? Before I get tired of Apache and ditch it in favor of Nginx? Edit: Some log informations. The last line of sslerror.log is from 90 minutes before the problem occurred, so I guess it's not important. ssl_request.log shows nothing interesting, too: these are the last two lines before the problem: [28/Aug/2012:17:47:54 +0200] x.x.x.x TLSv1.1 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA "GET /login HTTP/1.1" 1183 [28/Aug/2012:17:47:45 +0200] y.y.y.y TLSv1 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA "POST /upf HTTP/1.1" 73 The previous lines are all the same and don't seem interesting, except 4 lines like these 30-40 seconds before the problem: [28/Aug/2012:17:47:14 +0200] z.z.z.z TLSv1 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA "-" - These are the corrisponding lines from sslaccess.log: z.z.z.z - - [28/Aug/2012:17:47:14 +0200] "-" 408 - ... x.x.x.x - - [28/Aug/2012:17:47:54 +0200] "GET /login HTTP/1.1" 200 1183 y.y.y.y - - [28/Aug/2012:17:47:45 +0200] "POST /upf HTTP/1.1" 200 73

    Read the article

  • Setting subversion "password-stores" does nothing?

    - by Coderer
    The Subversion documentation says that I can set a parameter in ~/.subversion/config like [auths] password-stores = gnome-keyring to have it cache my certificate password in gnome-keyring. I set the option, and nothing happens -- no error messages, no change in behavior, nothing. Maybe I'm missing a log somewhere? I know subversion has to be compiled to support this but AFAIK I'm using the RPM version, which (they say...) ships with it rolled in. Is there a way to check whether my binary supports keyring? Shouldn't it say something if it doesn't?

    Read the article

  • IIS FTP 7.5 Data Channel Problem (SSL)

    - by user59050
    Hey there I wonder if anyone can get me in the right direction. I am setting up both a FTPS Client and Server, FTPS Server using Microsoft’s iis FTP 7.5. On the client side it will be running on Linux and I am using M2crypto for the openssl wrapping (python). I am worried the problem is on the server side (iis7.5) due to the following discovery : If I host using Filezilla with BOTH the control and data channel being forced to be encrypted it works 100% (100% file transmission), if i use iis as the server everything works up to the point when the data channel takes over... i.e. all data of the retrieved file is already received correctly in my basket! The ftp server just won't send the final '226 Transfer complete.' on the cmd socket. Why? If i force the client or server to close the connection the file is 100% intact....If i use iis 7.5 with forced encryption on control channel all works 100% as long as i don’t force data channel... Here are some screenshots to demo this... Client View after Kill Client : pics @ http://forums.iis.net/p/1172936/1960994.aspx#1960994 Summary : We can establish the connection, do directory listings, start the upload, see the file (0bytes) created on the server but then the client hangs. If we terminate the client, the uploaded file on the server suddenly jumps up to full size.

    Read the article

  • Root certificate authority works windows/linux but not mac osx - (malformed)

    - by AKwhat
    I have created a self-signed root certificate authority which if I install onto windows, linux, or even using the certificate store in firefox (windows/linux/macosx) will work perfectly with my terminating proxy. I have installed it into the system keychain and I have set the certificate to always trust. Within the chrome browser details it says "The certificate that Chrome received during this connection attempt is not formatted correctly, so Chrome cannot use it to protect your information. Error type: Malformed certificate" I used this code to create the certificate: openssl genrsa -des3 -passout pass:***** -out private/server.key 4096 openssl req -batch -passin pass:***** -new -x509 -nodes -sha1 -days 3600 -key private/server.key -out server.crt -config ../openssl.cnf If the issue is NOT that it is malformed (because it works everywhere else) then what else could it be? Am I installing it incorrectly? Update I tried changing the certificate attributes, but to no avail: openssl genrsa -des -passout pass:***** -out private/server.key 2048 openssl req -batch -passin pass:***** -new -x509 -nodes -sha256 -days 3600 -key private/server.key -out server.crt -config ../openssl.cnf

    Read the article

  • Add "secure" in cookie by httpd server

    - by Abhishek
    How do I have to configure my httpd server to add "Secure" in the cookies? I tried the one in the below link, http://blog.modsecurity.org/2008/12/fixing-both-missing-httponly-and-secure-cookie-flags.html but this did not seem to be working. I inspected the cookie via firebug and found that the cookies have "HttpOnly" but not "Secure". I double checked the configurations and they the same as mentioned in the link. I also noticed that the server response time goes bit high when doing it by mod_security. Is there a better way to do it? Any ideas or pointers to configurations would be helpful

    Read the article

  • ADD ROUTE command in windows 2008R2

    - by Mehrdad Kamelzadeh
    I don't know much about Networking, So excuse me if I am raising some basic issues. I have a LAN where there is a Windows Server 2008R2 with some clients connected to it. The clients are not joined to the domain of the Server (they are in a WORKGROUP). I have set up a VPS on the server machine (PPTP) with a Static address pool of range 10.0.0.1 - 10.0.0.10 but the LAN range itself is 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.254. When I connect to the server from another location over the internet, I can just see the server and I can not see the other clients which are in the same LAN as the server. what to do to see the other clients? a friend of mine said that you should use the ADD ROUTE command. Beacuse of that I used this command as my title. What would be the best way to address this problem? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Port-forwarding HTTPS web server

    - by James Moore
    I have port forwarded our front-facing IP to an internal HTTPS server. The browser does not connect. A wget command determines that the certificate is self-signed for the internal IP. Hence why the browser is refusing to display the page properly. What is the best-practice scenario for this sort of stuff? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Solutions for exporting a remote desktop app (display and audio)

    - by Richard
    I'm looking for a solution that will allow me to export a desktop app running on a server to a client machine. The server is ideally Linux, the desktop is Windows (+Mac for icing on the cake). The export should be encrypted and I need to support multiple clients from one server. I only want to export an individual app, not a whole desktop, and ideally am looking for open source solutions. The obvious, cheapest, simplest choice is to use X tunnelled over ssh (e.g using Xming on the desktop) but X doesn't support audio. What are the alternatives? Or is there a way to support audio using X or in parallel to X? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • mod_ssl RPM conflict

    - by 0A0D
    I build Apache httpd into an RPM using these sites: http://erikwebb.net/blog/compile-and-install-apache-24-red-hat-enterprise-linux-rhel-6-or-centos-6 http://ramblin-dude.blogspot.com/2013/04/compiling-rpm-for-httpd-on-rhel-57.html I was successful at building apr* and httpd*. However, when I try to install httpd using rpm -Uvh httpd-devel-2.2.25-1.x86_64.rpm httpd-2.2.25-1.x86_64.rpm mod_ssl-2.2.25-1.x86_64.rpm I get the following error: package mod_ssl-2.2.3-82.el5_9.x86_64 (which is newer than mod_ssl-2.2.25-1.x86_64) is already installed. I have httpd 2.2.3-82 installed. Do I need to remove it first? Seems counterintuitive.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >