Search Results

Search found 21719 results on 869 pages for 'password security'.

Page 113/869 | < Previous Page | 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120  | Next Page >

  • Implications on automatically "open" third party domain aliasing to one of my subdomains

    - by Giovanni
    I have a domain, let's call it www.mydomain.com where I have a portal with an active community of users. In this portal users cooperate in a wiki way to build some "kind of software". These software applications can then be run by accessing "public.mydomain.com/softwarename" I then want to let my users run these applications from their own subdomains. I know I can do that by automatically modifying the.htaccess file. This is not a problem. I want to let these users create dns aliases to let them access one specific subdomain. So if a user "pippo" that owns "www.pippo.com" wants to run software HelloWorld from his own subdomains he has to: Register to my site Create his own subdomain on his own site, run.pippo.com From his DNS control panel, he creates a CNAME record "run.pippo.com" pointing to "public.mydomain.com" He types in a browser http://run.pippo.com/HelloWorld When the software(that is physically run on my server) is called, first it checks that the originating domain is a trusted one. I don't do any other kind of check that restricts software execution. From a SEO perspective, I care about Google indexing of www.mydomain.com but I don't care about indexing of public.mydomain.com What are the possible security implications of doing this for my site? Is there a better way to do this or software that already does this that I can use?

    Read the article

  • An adequate message authentication code for REST

    - by Andras Zoltan
    My REST service currently uses SCRAM authentication to issue tokens for callers and users. We have the ability to revoke caller privileges and ban IPs, as well as impose quotas to any type of request. One thing that I haven't implemented, however, is MAC for requests. As I've thought about it more, for some requests I think this is needed, because otherwise tokens can be stolen and before we identify this and deactivate the associated caller account, some damage could be done to our user accounts. In many systems the MAC is generated from the body or query string of the request, however this is difficult to implement as I'm using the ASP.Net Web API and don't want to read the body twice. Equally importantly I want to keep it simple for callers to access the service. So what I'm thinking is to have a MAC calculated on: the url, possibly minus query string the verb the request ip (potentially is a barrier on some mobile devices though) utc date and time when the client issues the request. For the last one I would have the client send that string in a request header, of course - and I can use it to decide whether the request is 'fresh' enough. My thinking is that whilst this doesn't prevent message body tampering it does prevent using a model request to use as a template for different requests later on by a malicious third party. I believe only the most aggressive man in the middle attack would be able to subvert this, and I don't think our services offer any information or ability that is valuable enough to warrant that. The services will use SSL as well, for sensitive stuff. And if I do this, then I'll be using HMAC-SHA-256 and issuing private keys for HMAC appropriately. Does this sound enough? Have I missed anything? I don't think I'm a beginner when it comes to security, but when working on it I always. am shrouded in doubt, so I appreciate having this community to call upon!

    Read the article

  • Trigger IP ban based on request of given file?

    - by Mike Atlas
    I run a website where "x.php" was known to have vulnerabilities. The vulnerability has been fixed and I don't have "x.php" on my site anymore. As such with major public vulnerabilities, it seems script kiddies around are running tools that hitting my site looking for "x.php" in the entire structure of the site - constantly, 24/7. This is wasted bandwidth, traffic and load that I don't really need. Is there a way to trigger a time-based (or permanent) ban to an IP address that tries to access "x.php" anywhere on my site? Perhaps I need a custom 404 PHP page that captures the fact that the request was for "x.php" and then that triggers the ban? How can I do that? Thanks! EDIT: I should add that part of hardening my site, I've started using ZBBlock: This php security script is designed to detect certain behaviors detrimental to websites, or known bad addresses attempting to access your site. It then will send the bad robot (usually) or hacker an authentic 403 FORBIDDEN page with a description of what the problem was. If the attacker persists, then they will be served up a permanently reccurring 503 OVERLOAD message with a 24 hour timeout. But ZBBlock doesn't do quite exactly what I want to do, it does help with other spam/script/hack blocking.

    Read the article

  • Implicit OAuth2 endpoint vs. cookies

    - by Jamie
    I currently have an app which basically runs two halves of an API - a restful API for the web app, and a synchronisation API for the native clients (all over SSL). The web app is completely javascript based and is quite similar to the native clients anyway - except it currently does not work offline. What I'm hoping to do is merge the fragmented APIs into a single restful API. The web app currently authenticates by issuing a cookie to the client whereas the native clients work using a custom HMAC access token implementation. Obviously a public/private key scenario for a javascript app is a little pointless. I think the best solution would be to create an OAuth2 endpoint on the API (like Instagram, for example http://instagram.com/developer/authentication/) which is used by both the native apps and the web app. My question is, in terms of security how does an implicit OAuth2 flow compare (storing the access token in local storage) to "secure" cookies? Presumably although SSL solves man in the middle attacks, the user could theoretically grab the access token from local storage and copy it to another machine?

    Read the article

  • PHP safe_mode is a pain, looking for advice (Ubuntu 12.04 server, public webserver)

    - by user73279
    Maybe askUbuntu isn't the right forum or I haven't provided the right search query but I haven't seen anything in my searching of askUbuntu on PHP safe_mode. I get lots of Windows Safe Mode and Ubuntu Safe Mode results but not PHP safe_mode. So I keep running into one issue after another regarding PHP safe_mode. (I write a lot of my own PHP code for various site maintenance tools and such.) I know safe_mode is going away in the next version of PHP but I still see a fair amount of advice recommending that you leave it enabled. I've recently consolidated from 3 servers down to 1 and at least one of those old servers had safe_mode disabled without any issues. (The lack of issues may have simply been a matter of good luck.) None of the previous 3 gave me this much trouble so I'm guessing so additional php.ini/PHP safe_mode setting was turned on for the new server. I primarily run WordPress for my websites with a few MediaWiki sites sprinkled in. And I am currently running into an issue using WordPress's auto update feature as it doesn't seem to be able to use fopen. WordPress is not relaying the actual error message to me but since I was just able to update the plugins I'm using this is a safe_mode problem. I've had a lot of safe_mode issues since consolidating to this new server. Long story short, the advice I'd seen to use safe_mode was all at least 2 years old. Do I really need it? If I disable PHP safe_mode are there a good set of security measures I should implement - i.e. chmod 640 /var/www/..., add this to your .htaccess, etc - to protect my server/sites? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Disallow robots.txt from being accessed in a browser but still accessible by spiders?

    - by Michael Irigoyen
    We make use of the robots.txt file to prevent Google (and other search spiders) from crawling certain pages/directories in our domain. Some of these directories/files are secret, meaning they aren't linked (except perhaps on other pages encompassed by the robots.txt file). Some of these directories/files aren't secret, we just don't want them indexed. If somebody browses directly to www.mydomain.com/robots.txt, they can see the contents of the robots.txt file. From a security standpoint, this is not something we want publicly available to anybody. Any directories that contain secure information are set behind authentication, but we still don't want them to be discoverable unless the user specifically knows about them. Is there a way to provide a robots.txt file but to have it's presence masked by John Doe accessing it from his browser? Perhaps by using PHP to generate the document based on certain criteria? Perhaps something I'm not thinking of? We'd prefer a way to centrally do it (meaning a <meta> tag solution is less than ideal).

    Read the article

  • Creating deterministic key pairs in javascript for use in encrypting/decrypting/signing messages

    - by SlickTheNick
    So I have been searching everywhere and havn't been able to find anything with the sufficient information I need.. so Im a bit stumped on this one at the moment What I am trying to do is create a public/private key pair (like PGP) upon a users account creation, based on their passphrase and a random seed. The public key would be saved on the server, and ideally the private key would never be seen by the server whatsoever. The user could then sign in, and send a message to another user. Before the message is sent, the senders key pair would be re-generated on the fly based on their credentials (and maybe a password prompt) and used to encrypt the message. The receiver would then use their own re-generated private key to decrypt said message. The server itself should never see any plaintext passwords, private keys or readable messages. Bit unsure how on how I could go about implementing this. Iv been looking into PGP, specifically openPGP.js. The main trouble I am having is being able to regenerate the key-pair based off a specific seed. PGP seems to have a random output even if the inputs are the same. Storing the private key in a cookie or in HTML5 storage or something also isnt really an option, too unreliable. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • What to do if you find a vulnerability in a competitor's site?

    - by user17610
    While working on a project for my company, I needed to build functionality that allows users to import/export data to/from our competitor's site. While doing this, I discovered a very serious security exploit that could, in short, perform any script on the competitor's website. My natural feeling is to report the issue to them in the spirit of good-will. Exploiting the issue to gain advantage crossed my mind, but I don't want to go down that path. So my question is, would you report a serious vulnerability to your direct competition, in order to help them? Or would you keep your mouth shut? Is there a better way of going about this, perhaps to gain at least some advantage from the fact that I'm helping them by reporting the issue? Update (Clarification): Thanks for all your feedback so far, I appreciate it. Would your answers change if I were to add that the competition in question is a behemoth in the market (hundreds of employees in several continents), and my company only started a few weeks ago (three employees)? It goes without saying, they most definitely will not remember us, and if anything, only realize that their site needs work (which is why we entered this market in the first place). I confess this is one of those moral vs. business toss-ups, but I appreciate all the advice.

    Read the article

  • Is full partition encryption the only sure way to make Ubuntu safe from external access?

    - by fred.bear
    (By "external access", I mean eg. via a Live CD, or another OS on the same dual-boot machine) A friend wants to try Ubuntu. He's fed up with Vista grinding to a crawl (the kids? :), so he likes the "potential" security offered by Ubuntu, but because the computer will be multi-booting Ubuntu (primary) and 2 Vistas (one for him, if he ever needs it again, and the other one for the kids to screw up (again). However, he is concerned about any non-Ubuntu access to the Ubuntu partitions (and also to his Vista partition)... I believe TrueCrypt will do the job for his Vista, but I'd like to know what the best encryption system for Ubuntu is... If TrueCrypt works for Ubuntu, it may be the best option for him, as it would be the same look and feel for both. Ubuntu will be installed with 3 partitions; 1) root 2) home 3) swap.. Will Ubuntu's boot loader clash with TrueCrypt's encrypted partition? PS.. Is encryption a suitable solution?

    Read the article

  • WMI permissions: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process returns no data for CommandLine

    - by user57935
    Hi all, I am gathering performance data via WMI and would like to avoid having to use an account in the Administrators group for this purpose. The target machine is running Windows Server 2003 with the latest SP/updates. I've done what I believe to be the appropriate configuration to allow our user access to WMI (similar to what is described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa393266.aspx). Here are the specific steps that were followed: Open Administrative Tools - Computer Management: Under Computer Management (Local) Expand Services and Applications, right click WMI Control and select properties. In the Security tab, expand Root, highlight CIMV2, click Security (near bottom of window); add Performance Monitor Users and enable the options : Enable Account and Remote Enable. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - Right click My Computer and select properties, select the COM security tab, in “Access Permissions” click "Edit Default" select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow local access and remote access and click ok. In “Launch and Activation Permissions” click “Edit Default” select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow Local and Remote Launch and Activation Permissions. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - My Computer - DCOM Config - highlight “Windows Management and Instrumentation” right click and select properties, Select the Security tab, Under “Launch and Activation Permissions” select Customize, then click edit, add the “Performance Users Group” and allow local and remote Remote Launch and Remote Activation privileges. I am able to connect remotely via WMI Explorer but when I perform this query: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process I get a valid result but every row has an empty CommandLine. If I add the user to the Administrators group and re-run the query, the CommandLine column contains the expected data. It seems there is a permission I am missing somewhere but I am not having much luck tracking it down. Many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • WMI permissions: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process returns no data for CommandLine

    - by user57935
    I am gathering performance data via WMI and would like to avoid having to use an account in the Administrators group for this purpose. The target machine is running Windows Server 2003 with the latest SP/updates. I've done what I believe to be the appropriate configuration to allow our user access to WMI (similar to what is described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa393266.aspx). Here are the specific steps that were followed: Open Administrative Tools - Computer Management: Under Computer Management (Local) Expand Services and Applications, right click WMI Control and select properties. In the Security tab, expand Root, highlight CIMV2, click Security (near bottom of window); add Performance Monitor Users and enable the options : Enable Account and Remote Enable. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - Right click My Computer and select properties, select the COM security tab, in “Access Permissions” click "Edit Default" select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow local access and remote access and click ok. In “Launch and Activation Permissions” click “Edit Default” select(or add then select) “Performance Monitor Users” group and allow Local and Remote Launch and Activation Permissions. ­Open Administrative Tools - Component Services: Under Console Root go to Component Services- Computers - My Computer - DCOM Config - highlight “Windows Management and Instrumentation” right click and select properties, Select the Security tab, Under “Launch and Activation Permissions” select Customize, then click edit, add the “Performance Users Group” and allow local and remote Remote Launch and Remote Activation privileges. I am able to connect remotely via WMI Explorer but when I perform this query: Select CommandLine, ProcessId FROM Win32_Process I get a valid result but every row has an empty CommandLine. If I add the user to the Administrators group and re-run the query, the CommandLine column contains the expected data. It seems there is a permission I am missing somewhere but I am not having much luck tracking it down. Many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • signed applet automatically running as insecure

    - by Terje Dahl
    My application is deployed as a self-signed applet to several thousand users at more than 50 schools across the country (in Norway). The user is presented with the standard Java security warning asking if they will accept the signature. When they do, the applet runs perfectly. However, about half a year ago a group of 7 school, all under a common IT department, stopped getting the security warning. In stead the applet loads and starts running in untrusted mode, without first giving the user an option to accept or reject the signature. The problem is on Windows machines, and only when the machine is connected to the schools network. If they take the same machine home with them, the program functions as it should, with security warnings and everything. I know little about Window systems in general, but I would think it would be some sort of policy-file or something that is loaded when a machine hooks up to/through the schools network. Furthermore, the problem only started occurring in these 7 schools after changes made after a security breach they had a while back. The IT department is stumped. I am stumped. Any thoughts, comments, suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Resolving "JBoss Web Console is Accessible to Unauthenticated Remote Users" vulnerability

    - by IAmJeff
    Our security team has determined there is a vulnerability in one of our systems. We are using version JBoss 5.1.0GA on RHEL 5.10. Vulnerability description: JBoss Web Console is Accessible to Unauthenticated Remote Users Yes, this looks familiar. Refer to Question 501417. I do not find the answer there complete. Can someone (or multiple someones) answer Does a newer version of JBoss fix this vulnerability? Are there links describing, in more detail, manual modification of JBoss configuration files to resolve the issue? Are there others options to remediate this vulnerability? Why don't I find the other answer complete? I'm not at all familiar with JBoss, so this answer seems a bit too simple. The web-console.war contains commented-out templates for basic security in its WEB-INF/web.xml as well as commented-out setup for a security domain in WEB-INF/jboss-web.xml. Just uncomment those basic security blocks and restart? Is there anything else I need to include? This seems generic. Do I need to include anything about my environment, such as absolute paths, etc.? Am I making this too complicated?

    Read the article

  • Identifying mail account used in CRAM-MD5 transaction

    - by ManiacZX
    I suppose this is one of those where the tool for identifying the problem is also the tool used for taking advantage of it. I have a mail server that I am seeing emails that spam is being sent through it. It is not an open relay, the messages in question are being sent by someone authenticating to the smtp with CRAM-MD5. However, the logs only capture the actual data passed, which has been hashed so I cannot see what user account is being used. My suspicion is a simple username/password combo or a user account's password has otherwise been compromised, but I cannot do much about it without knowing what user it is. Of course I can block the IP that is doing it, but that doesn't fix the real problem. I have both the CRAM-MD5 Base64 challenge string and the hashed client auth string containing the username, password and challenge string. I am looking for a way to either reverse this (which I haven't been able to find any information on) or otherwise I suppose I need a dictionary attack tool designed for CRAM-MD5 to run through two lists, one for username and one for password and the constant of the challenge string until it finds a matching result of the authentication string I have logged. Any information on reversing using the data I have logged, a tool to identify it or any alternative methods you have used for this situation would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How do I deny access to everybody but me in Windows 7?

    - by GregH
    I am trying to set up a file server on my my Windows 7 Pro system at home. I set up one common "Share" folder that I have shared/published. Within the share folder I want to have individual folders for me and my wife...that is only I can read/write my folder and only my wife can read/write to her folder and neither of us can read the contents of the other person's folder. Then I want to have a "public" folder where we can both read/write to contents of the folder as well as any sub-folders created, but my "kids" account can only read from this folder and sub folders. It seems really confusing to set up something like this and it really shouldn't. I am really confused between the "allow", "deny", and dimmed check boxes in the security tab. It seems that if I "Deny" access to "Everyone" on my private folder, then I don't even have access to it. Windows security seems backwards from the rest of the world's security models. If I am in two groups and I deny access to one of the groups but allow access to the other group then Windows security denies me access as I am in one of the groups that has access disallowed. Very confusing.

    Read the article

  • Can't add service account to domain group during SQL cluster install

    - by Sam
    I'm installing a 2008 instance on a Server 2003 machine which is already running SQL 2005. I need to set up domain groups for the security setup step: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179530.aspx On Windows Server 2003, specify domain groups for SQL Server services. All resource permissions are controlled by domain-level groups that include SQL Server service accounts as group members. Much more info on this here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/910708 I've had problems with being able to add the windows service accounts to the groups at install time. The security admins had to make my account a domain admin - which they were hesitant to do. The account under which SQL Server Setup is running must have permissions to add accounts to the domain groups. Is there a specific security setting which would allow my account to add accounts to a group? UPDATE: I'm looking for specific instructions. I have a global group called domain\servicegroup - what do I tell the security folks to do. I'd love to figure it out myself, but I don't have access to this stuff.

    Read the article

  • Multi- authentication scenario for a public internet service using Kerberos

    - by StrangeLoop
    I have a public web server which has users coming from internet (via HTTPS) and from a corporate intranet. I wish to use Kerberos authentication for the intranet users so that they would be automatically logged in the web application without the need to provide any login/password (assuming they are already logged to the Windows domain). For the users coming from internet I want to provide traditional basic/form- based authentication. User/password data for these users would be stored internally in a database used by the application. Web application will be configured to use Kerberos authentication for users coming from specific intranet ip networks and basic/form- based authentication will be used for the rest of the users. From a security perspective, are there some risks involved in this kind of setup or is this a generally accepted solution? My understanding is that server doesn't need access to KDC (see Kerberos authentication, service host and access to KDC) and it can be completely isolated from AD and corporate intranet. The server has a keytab file stored locally that is used to decrypt tickets sent by the users coming from intranet. The tickets only contain username and domain of the incoming user. Server never sees the passwords of authenticated users. If the server would be hacked and the keytab file compromised, it would mean that attacker could forge tickets for any domain user and get access to the web application as any user. But typically this is the case anyway if hacker gains access to the keytab file on the local filesystem. The encryption key contained in the keytab file is based on the service account password in AD and is in hashed form, I guess it is very difficult to brute force this password if strong Kerberos encryption like AES-256-SHA1 is used. As the server has no network access to intranet, even the compromised service account couldn't be directly used for anything.

    Read the article

  • What are ways to prevent files with the Right-to-Left Override Unicode character in their name (a malware spoofing method) from being written or read?

    - by galacticninja
    What are ways to avoid or prevent files with the RLO (Right-to-Left Override) Unicode character in their name (a malware method to spoof filenames) from being written or read in a Windows PC? More info on the RLO unicode character here: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/202e/index.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-directional_text Info on the RLO unicode character when used by malware: http://www.ipa.jp/security/english/virus/press/201110/E_PR201110.html Mirror link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KasmfOvbVJ8J:www.ipa.jp/security/english/virus/press/201110/E_PR201110.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk You can try this RLO character test webpage: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/202e/browsertest.htm The RLO character is also already pasted in the 'Input Test' field in that webpage. Try typing there and notice that the characters you're typing are coming out in their reverse orders (right-to-left, instead of left-to-right). In filenames, the RLO character can be specifically positioned in the filename to spoof or masquerade as having a filename or file extension that is different than what it actually has. (Will still be hidden even if 'Hide extensions for known filetypes' is unchecked.) The only info I can find that has info on how to prevent files with the RLO character from being run is from the Information Technology Promotion Agency, Japan website: http://www.ipa.jp/security/english/virus/press/201110/E_PR201110.html (Mirror link). They adviced to use the Local Security Policy settings manager to block files with the RLO character in its name from being run. Can anyone recommend any other good solutions to prevent files with the RLO character in their names from being written or being read in the computer, or a way to alert the user if a file with the RLO character is detected? My OS is Windows 7, but I'll be looking for solutions for Windows XP, Vista and 7, or a solution that will work for all those OSes, to help people using those OSes too.

    Read the article

  • Strange ssh login

    - by Hikaru
    I am running debian server and i have received a strange email warning about ssh login It says, that user mail logged in using ssh from remote address: Environment info: USER=mail SSH_CLIENT=92.46.127.173 40814 22 MAIL=/var/mail/mail HOME=/var/mail SSH_TTY=/dev/pts/7 LOGNAME=mail TERM=xterm PATH=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11:/usr/games LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/sh KRB5CCNAME=FILE:/tmp/krb5cc_8 PWD=/var/mail SSH_CONNECTION=92.46.127.173 40814 my-ip-here 22 I looked in /etc/shadow and find out, that password for is not set mail:*:15316:0:99999:7::: I found this lines for login in auth.log n 3 02:57:09 gw sshd[2090]: pam_winbind(sshd:auth): getting password (0x00000388) Jun 3 02:57:09 gw sshd[2090]: pam_winbind(sshd:auth): pam_get_item returned a password Jun 3 02:57:09 gw sshd[2091]: pam_winbind(sshd:auth): user 'mail' granted access Jun 3 02:57:09 gw sshd[2091]: Accepted password for mail from 92.46.127.173 port 45194 ssh2 Jun 3 02:57:09 gw sshd[2091]: pam_unix(sshd:session): session opened for user mail by (uid=0) Jun 3 02:57:10 gw CRON[2051]: pam_unix(cron:session): session closed for user root and lots of auth failures for this user. There is no lines with COMMAND string for this user. Nothing was found with "rkhunter" and with "ps aux" process inspection, also there is no suspicious connections was found with "netstat" (as I can see) Can anyone tell me how it is possible and what else should be done? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to (re)enable the "New" context menu items for an administrator when right-clicking in a folder and selecting New > X?

    - by Metro Smurf
    I just migrated from XP x86 to Win7 x64 (clean install). I had a couple of data drives in my XP x86 system that I physically moved to my Win7 x64 system. When browsing a directory in any of the transferred drives, the only option available in the 'new' context menu is "Folder", i.e., Right-Click inside a folder New Folder (this is similar behavior for Win7 when using the context menu in c:\Program Files): However, whenever creating a new folder within any of the directories, all the context menu new items are available within the new folder: Steps I've taken that have failed to add the new context menu items: Removing all security permissions from a directory and sub-directories. Replacing them with new permissions. As well as removing inheritable permissions from the parent. Taking explicit ownership of a directory and sub-directories. Combing the above two. Sample of Effective Permissions that do not work: Steps I've taken that have succeeded to add the new context menu items: Adding the "Everyone" group to the drive and giving the group explicit "Modify" privileges. Giving the "Everyone" group explicit privileges smells wrong. I'm an administrator on my system; why should I have to add the "Everyone" group as well? Adding my username to the drive and giving full permissions. Again, since I'm an administrator on my system and the administrators group already has full control of the drive/directories/folders, why should I have to explicitly add my user name to the security permissions? Finally, The Question: Is it possible to have the New Item context menu have all available options by default without having to explicitly add the everyone group or a specific user name to the security permissions? I'm suspecting that the option may not be available unless the username is explicitly added to the security permissions. Of note: I've seen the registry hacks for updating the new items context menu; my preference is to avoid such hacks and return the functionality to the expected behavior an administrator should have.

    Read the article

  • Error in Implementing WS Security web service in WebLogic 10.3

    - by Chris
    Hi, I am trying to develop a JAX WS web service with WS-Security features in WebLogic 10.3. I have used the ant tasks WSDLC, JWSC and ClientGen to generate skeleton/stub for this web service. I have two keystores namely WSIdentity.jks and WSTrust.jks which contains the keys and certificates. One of the alias of WSIdentity.jks is "ws02p". The test client has the following code to invoke the web service: SecureSimpleService service = new SecureSimpleService(); SecureSimplePortType port = service.getSecureSimplePortType(); List credProviders = new ArrayList(); CredentialProvider cp = new ClientBSTCredentialProvider( "E:\\workspace\\SecureServiceWL103\\keystores\\WSIdentity.jks", "webservice", "ws01p","webservice"); credProviders.add(cp); string endpointURL="http://localhost:7001/SecureSimpleService/SecureSimpleService"; BindingProvider bp = (BindingProvider)port; Map requestContext = bp.getRequestContext(); requestContext.put(BindingProvider.ENDPOINT_ADDRESS_PROPERTY, endpointURL); requestContext.put(WSSecurityContext.CREDENTIAL_PROVIDER_LIST,credProviders); requestContext.put(WSSecurityContext.TRUST_MANAGER, new TrustManager() { public boolean certificateCallback(X509Certificate[] chain, int validateErr) { // Put some custom validation code in here. // Just return true for now return true; } }); SignResponse resp1 = new SignResponse(); resp1 = port.echoSignOnlyMessage("hello sign"); System.out.println("Result: " + resp1.getMessage()); When I trying to invoke this web servcie using this test client I am getting the error "Invalid signing policy" with the following stack trace: *[java] weblogic.wsee.security.wss.policy.SecurityPolicyArchitectureException: Invalid signing policy [java] at weblogic.wsee.security.wss.plan.SecurityPolicyBlueprintDesigner.verifyPolicy(SecurityPolicyBlueprintDesigner.java:786) [java] at weblogic.wsee.security.wss.plan.SecurityPolicyBlueprintDesigner.designOutboundBlueprint(SecurityPolicyBlueprintDesigner.java:136) Am I missing any configuration settings in WebLogic admin console or is it do with something else. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to fix security exception when using recaptcha on MVC site

    - by camainc
    I followed this excellent blog post to implement recaptcha on my MVC site: http://devlicio.us/blogs/derik_whittaker/archive/2008/12/02/using-recaptcha-with-asp-net-mvc.aspx I converted the code to VB, and everything seems to compile ok. However, when the code gets to the place where the recapture is about to be generated, I get a security exception. Here is the function where the exception occurs (on the last line in the function): <Extension()> _ Public Function GenerateCaptcha(ByVal htmlHelper As HtmlHelper) As MvcHtmlString Dim captchaControl As New Recaptcha.RecaptchaControl With captchaControl .ID = "recaptcha" .Theme = "blackglass" .PublicKey = "6Lcv9AsAAAAAALCSZNRfWFmrKjw2AR-yuZAL84Bd" .PrivateKey = "6Lcv9AsAAAAAAHCbRujWcZzrY0z6G_HIMvFyYEPR" End With Dim htmlWriter As New HtmlTextWriter(New IO.StringWriter) captchaControl.RenderControl(htmlWriter) Return MvcHtmlString.Create(htmlWriter.InnerWriter.ToString()) End Function The exception is this: Security Exception Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file. Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Web.AspNetHostingPermission, System, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed. Has anyone else seen this exception, and if so, how did you fix it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Integrated Security on Reporting Services XML Datasource

    - by Nathan
    Hey all, I am working on setting up my report server to use a web service as an XML datasource. I seem to be having authentication issues between the web service and the report with I choose to use Integrated security. Here's what I have: 1) I have a website w/ an exposed service. This website is configured to run ONLY on Integrated Security. This means that we have all other modes turned off AND Enabled anonymous access turned off under directory security. 2) Within the Web.config of the website, I have the authentication mode set to Windows. 3) I have the report datasource set to being an XML data source. I have the correct URL to the service and have it set to Windows Integrated Security. Since I am making a hop from the Browser to the Reporting Server to the Web Service, I wonder if I am having an issue w/ Kerberos, but I am not sure. When I try to access the service, I get a 401 error. Here are the IIS logs that I am generating: 2011-01-07 14:52:12 W3SVC IP_ADDY POST /URL.asmx - 80 - IP_ADDY - 401 1 0 2011-01-07 14:52:12 W3SVC IP_ADDY POST /URL.asmx - 80 - IP_ADDY - 401 1 5 Has anyone worked out this issue before? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • IIS SSL Certificate Renewal Pain

    - by Rick Strahl
    I’m in the middle of my annual certificate renewal for the West Wind site and I can honestly say that I hate IIS’s certificate system.  When it works it’s fine, but when it doesn’t man can it be a pain. Because I deal with public certificates on my site merely once a year, and you have to perform the certificate dance just the right way, I seem to run into some sort of trouble every year, thinking that Microsoft surely must have addressed the issues I ran into previously – HA! Not so. Don’t ever use the Renew Certificate Feature in IIS! The first rule that I should have never forgotten is that certificate renewals in IIS (7 is what I’m using but I think it’s no different in 7.5 and 8), simply don’t work if you’re submitting to get a public certificate from a certificate authority. I use DNSimple for my DNS domain management and SSL certificates because they provide ridiculously easy domain management and good prices for SSL certs – especially wildcard certificates, which is what I use on west-wind.com. Certificates in IIS can be found pegged to the machine root. If you go into the IIS Manager, go to the machine root the tree and then click on certificates and you then get various certificate options: Both of these options create a new Certificate request (CSR), which is just a text file. But if you’re silly enough like me to click on the Renew button on your old certificate, you’ll find that you end up generating a very long Certificate Request that looks nothing like the original certificate request and the format that’s used for this is not accepted by most certificate authorities. While I’m not sure exactly what the problem is, it simply looks like IIS is respecting none of your original certificate bit size choices and is generating a huge certificate request that is 3 times the size of a ‘normal’ certificate request. The end result is (and I’ve done this at least twice now) is that the certificate processor is likely to fail processing those renewals. Always create a new Certificate While it’s a little more work and you have to remember how to fill out the certificate request properly, this is the safe way to make sure your certificate generates properly. First comes the Distinguished Name Properties dialog: Ah yes you have to love the nomenclature of this stuff. Distinguished name, Common name – WTF is a common name? It doesn’t look common to me! Make sure this form gets filled out correctly. Common NameThis is the domain name of the Web site. In my case I’m creating a wildcard certificate so I’m using the * prefix. If you’re purchasing a certificate for a specific domain use www.west-wind.com or store.west-wind.com for example. Make sure this matches the EXACT domain you’re trying to use secure access on because that’s all the certificate is going to work on unless you get a wildcard certificate. Organization Is the name of your company or organization. Depending on the kind of certificate you purchase this name will show up on your certificate. Most low end SSL certificates (ie. those that cost under $100 for single domains) don’t list the organization, the higher signature certificates that also require extensive validation by the cert authority do. Regardless you should make sure this matches the right company/organization. Organizational Unit This can be anything. Not really sure what this is for, but traditionally I’ve always set this to Web because – well this is a Web thing after all right? I’ve never seen this used anywhere that I can tell other than to internally reference the cert. State and CountryPretty obvious. Should reflect the location of the business/organization/person or site.   Next you have to configure the bit size used for the certificate: The default on this dialog is 1024, but I’ve found that most providers these days request a minimum bit length of 2048, as did my DNSimple provider. Again check with the provider when you submit to make sure. Bit length mismatches can cause problems if you use a size that isn’t supported by the provider. I had that happen last year when I submitted my CSR and it got rejected quite a bit later, when the certs usually are issued within an hour or less. When you’re done here, the certificate is saved to disk as a .txt file and it should look something like this (this is a 2048 bit length CSR):-----BEGIN NEW CERTIFICATE REQUEST----- MIIEVGCCAz0CAQAwdjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxDzANBgNVBAgMBkhhd2FpaTENMAsG A1UEBwwEUGFpYTEfMB0GA1UECgwWV2VzdCBXaW5kIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llczEMMAoG B1UECwwDV2ViMRgwFgYDVQQDDA8qLndlc3Qtd2luZC5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDIPWOFMkMVRp2Ftj9w/cCVV4OYYhoZYtl+8lTk oqDwKca0xWHLgioX/9v0rZLS6a82MHqKEBxVXu+cuCmSE4AQtB/1YH9lS4tpc/be OZDvnTotP6l4MCEzzAfROcw4CiIg6X0RMSnl8IATAvv2V5LQM9TDdt9oDdMpX2IY +vVC9RZ7PMHBmR9kwI2i/lrKitzhQKaHgpmKcRlM6iqpALUiX28w5HJaDKK1MDHN 607tyFJLHijuJKx7PdTqZYf50KkC3NupfZ2avVycf18Q13jHWj59tvwEOczoVzRL l4LQivAqbhyiqMpWnrZunIOUZta5aGm+jo7O1knGWJjxuraTAgMBAAGgggGYMBoG CisGAQQBgjcNAgMxDBYKNi4yLjkyMDAuMjA0BgkrBgEEAYI3FRQxJzAlAgEFDAZS QVNYUFMMC1JBU1hQU1xSaWNrDAtJbmV0TWdyLmV4ZTByBgorBgEEAYI3DQICMWQw YgIBAR5aAE0AaQBjAHIAbwBzAG8AZgB0ACAAUgBTAEEAIABTAEMAaABhAG4AbgBl AGwAIABDAHIAeQBwAHQAbwBnAHIAYQBwAGgAaQBjACAAUAByAG8AdgBpAGQAZQBy AwEAMIHPBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ4xgcEwgb4wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgTwMBMGA1UdJQQM MAoGCCsGAQUFBwMBMHgGCSqGSIb3DQEJDwRrMGkwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA4G CCqGSIb3DQMEAgIAgDALBglghkgBZQMEASowCwYJYIZIAWUDBAEtMAsGCWCGSAFl AwQBAjALBglghkgBZQMEAQUwBwYFKw4DAgcwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwHQYDVR0OBBYE FD/yOsTbXE+GVFCFMmldzQvyloz9MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCK6LlsCuIM 1AU0niB6QZ9v0FTsGFxP1dYvVUnJyY6VEKNiGFiQjZac7UCs0p58yScdXWEFOE8V OsjAYD3xYNc05+ckyD67UHRGEUAVB9RBvbKW23KeR/8kBmEzc8PemD52YOgExxAJ 57xWmAwEHAvbgYzQvhO8AOzH3TGvvHbg5UKM1pYgNmuwZq5DkL/IDoeIJwfk/wrI wghNTuxxIFgbH4YrgLgv4PRvrS/LaTCRBdboaCgzATMczaOb1nd/DVNR+3fCtMhM W0psTAjzRbmXF3nJyAQa7jF/52gkY0RfFX2lG5tJnG+XDsVNvKNvh9Qa5Tlmkm06 ILKCm9ciWCKk -----END NEW CERTIFICATE REQUEST----- You can take that certificate request and submit that to your certificate provider. Since this is base64 encoded you can typically just paste it into a text box on the submission page, or some providers will ask you to upload the CSR as a file. What does a Renewal look like? Note the length of the CSR will vary somewhat with key strength, but compare this to a renewal request that IIS generated from my existing site:-----BEGIN NEW CERTIFICATE REQUEST----- MIIPpwYFKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIPmDCCD5QCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIIIqAYJKoZI hvcNAQcBoIIImQSCCJUwggiRMIIH+gIBADBdMSEwHwYDVQQLDBhEb21haW4gQ29u dHJvbCBWYWxpFGF0ZWQxHjAcBgNVBAsMFUVzc2VudGlhbFNTTCBXaWxkY2FyZDEY MBYGA1UEAwwPKi53ZXN0LXdpbmQuY29tMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCB iQKBgQCK4OuIOR18Wb8tNMGRZiD1c9X57b332Lj7DhbckFqLs0ys8kVDHrTXSj+T Ye9nmAvfPpZmBtE5p9qRNN79rUYugAdl+qEtE4IJe1bRfxXzcKa1SXa8+TEs3zQa zYSmcR2dDuC8om1eAdeCtt0NnkvANgm1VLwGOor/UHMASaEhCQIDAQABoIIG8jAa BgorBgEEAYI3DQIDMQwWCjYuMi45MjAwLjIwNAYJKwYBBAGCNxUUMScwJQIBBQwG UkFTWFBTDAtSQVNYUFNcUmljawwLSW5ldE1nci5leGUwZgYKKwYBBAGCNw0CAjFY MFYCAQIeTgBNAGkAYwByAG8AcwBvAGYAdAAgAFMAdAByAG8AbgBnACAAQwByAHkA cAB0AG8AZwByAGEAcABoAGkAYwAgAFAAcgBvAHYAaQBkAGUAcgMBADCCAQAGCSqG SIb3DQEJDjGB8jCB7zAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADA0BgNV HSUELTArBggrBgEFBQcDAQYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCisGAQQBgjcKAwMGCWCGSAGG+EIE ATBPBgNVHSAESDBGMDoGCysGAQQBsjEBAgIHMCswKQYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHWh0dHBz Oi8vc2VjdXJlLmNvbW9kby5jb20vQ1BTMAgGBmeBDAECATApBgNVHREEIjAggg8q Lndlc3Qtd2luZC5jb22CDXdlc3Qtd2luZC5jb20wHQYDVR0OBBYEFEVLAyO8gDiv lsfovKrx9mHPyrsiMIIFMAYJKwYBBAGCNw0BMYIFITCCBR0wggQFoAMCAQICEQDu 1E1T5Jvtkm5LOfSHabWlMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMHIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRsw GQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAY BgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMRgwFgYDVQQDEw9Fc3NlbnRpYWxTU0wg Q0EwHhcNMTQwNTA3MDAwMDAwWhcNMTUwNjA2MjM1OTU5WjBdMSEwHwYDVQQLExhE b21haW4gQ29udHJvbCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxHjAcBgNVBAsTFUVzc2VudGlhbFNTTCBX aWxkY2FyZDEYMBYGA1UEAxQPKi53ZXN0LXdpbmQuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAiyKfL66XB51DlUfm6xXqJBcvMU2qorRHxC+WjEpB amvg8XoqNfCKzDAvLMbY4BLhbYCTagqtslnP3Gj4AKhXqRKU0n6iSbmS1gcWzCJM CHufZ5RDtuTuxhTdJxzP9YqZUfKV5abWQp/TK6V1ryaBJvdqM73q4tRjrQODtkiR PfZjxpybnBHFJS8jYAf8jcOjSDZcgN1d9Evc5MrEJCp/90cAkozyF/NMcFtD6Yj8 UM97z3MzDT2JPDoH3kAr3cCgpUNyQ2+wDNCnL9eWYFkOQi8FZMsZol7KlZ5NgNfO a7iZMVGbqDg6rkS//2uGe6tSQJTTs+mAZB+na+M8XT2UqwIDAQABo4IBwTCCAb0w HwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU2svqrVsIXcz//CZUzknlVcY49PgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFH0AmLiL RSEL9+sQD/n5O4N7/nnqMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMDQG A1UdJQQtMCsGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEFBQcDAgYKKwYBBAGCNwoDAwYJYIZIAYb4 QgQBME8GA1UdIARIMEYwOgYLKwYBBAGyMQECAgcwKzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0 cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLmNvbS9DUFMwCAYGZ4EMAQIBMDsGA1UdHwQ0MDIw MKAuoCyGKmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0Vzc2VudGlhbFNTTENBLmNy bDBuBggrBgEFBQcBAQRiMGAwOAYIKwYBBQUHMAKGLGh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2Rv Y2EuY29tL0Vzc2VudGlhbFNTTENBXzIuY3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8v b2NzcC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20wKQYDVR0RBCIwIIIPKi53ZXN0LXdpbmQuY29tgg13 ZXN0LXdpbmQuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBqBfd6QHrxXsfgfKARG6np 8yszIPhHGPPmaE7xq7RpcZjY9H+8l6fe4jQbGFjbA5uHBklYI4m2snhPaW2p8iF8 YOkm2V2hEsSTnkf5/flw9mZtlCFEDFXSsBxBdNz8RYTthPMu1h09C0XuDB30sztg nR692FrxJN5/bXsk+MC9nEweTFW/t2HW+XZ8bhM7vsAS+pZionR4MyuQ0mYIt/lD csZVZ91KxTsIm8rNMkkYGFoSIXjQ0+0tCbxMF0i2qnpmNRpA6PU8l7lxxvPkplsk 9KB8QIPFrR5p/i/SUAd9vECWh5+/ktlcrfFP2PK7XcEwWizsvMrNqLyvQVNXSUPT MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBABt/NitwMzc5t22p5+zy4HXbVYzLEjesLH8/v0ot uLQ3kkG8tIWNh5RplxIxtilXt09H4Oxpo3fKUN0yw+E6WsBfg0sAF8pHNBdOJi48 azrQbt4HvKktQkGpgYFjLsormjF44SRtToLHlYycDHBNvjaBClUwMCq8HnwY6vDq xikRoIIFITCCBR0wggQFoAMCAQICEQDu1E1T5Jvtkm5LOfSHabWlMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBBQUAMHIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0 ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVk MRgwFgYDVQQDEw9Fc3NlbnRpYWxTU0wgQ0EwHhcNMTQwNTA3MDAwMDAwWhcNMTUw NjA2MjM1OTU5WjBdMSEwHwYDVQQLExhEb21haW4gQ29udHJvbCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQx HjAcBgNVBAsTFUVzc2VudGlhbFNTTCBXaWxkY2FyZDEYMBYGA1UEAxQPKi53ZXN0 LXdpbmQuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAiyKfL66X B51DlUfm6xXqJBcvMU2qorRHxC+WjEpBamvg8XoqNfCKzDAvLMbY4BLhbYCTagqt slnP3Gj4AKhXqRKU0n6iSbmS1gcWzCJMCHufZ5RDtuTuxhTdJxzP9YqZUfKV5abW Qp/TK6V1ryaBJvdqM73q4tRjrQODtkiRPfZjxpybnBHFJS8jYAf8jcOjSDZcgN1d 9Evc5MrEJCp/90cAkozyF/NMcFtD6Yj8UM97z3MzDT2JPDoH3kAr3cCgpUNyQ2+w DNCnL9eWYFkOQi8FZMsZol7KlZ5NgNfOa7iZMVGbqDg6rkS//2uGe6tSQJTTs+mA ZB+na+M8XT2UqwIDAQABo4IBwTCCAb0wHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAU2svqrVsIXcz//CZU zknlVcY49PgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFH0AmLiLRSEL9+sQD/n5O4N7/nnqMA4GA1UdDwEB /wQEAwIFoDAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMDQGA1UdJQQtMCsGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEF BQcDAgYKKwYBBAGCNwoDAwYJYIZIAYb4QgQBME8GA1UdIARIMEYwOgYLKwYBBAGy MQECAgcwKzApBggrBgEFBQcCARYdaHR0cHM6Ly9zZWN1cmUuY29tb2RvLmNvbS9D UFMwCAYGZ4EMAQIBMDsGA1UdHwQ0MDIwMKAuoCyGKmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuY29tb2Rv Y2EuY29tL0Vzc2VudGlhbFNTTENBLmNybDBuBggrBgEFBQcBAQRiMGAwOAYIKwYB BQUHMAKGLGh0dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0Vzc2VudGlhbFNTTENBXzIu Y3J0MCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5jb21vZG9jYS5jb20wKQYDVR0R BCIwIIIPKi53ZXN0LXdpbmQuY29tgg13ZXN0LXdpbmQuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB BQUAA4IBAQBqBfd6QHrxXsfgfKARG6np8yszIPhHGPPmaE7xq7RpcZjY9H+8l6fe 4jQbGFjbA5uHBklYI4m2snhPaW2p8iF8YOkm2V2hEsSTnkf5/flw9mZtlCFEDFXS sBxBdNz8RYTthPMu1h09C0XuDB30sztgnR692FrxJN5/bXsk+MC9nEweTFW/t2HW +XZ8bhM7vsAS+pZionR4MyuQ0mYIt/lDcsZVZ91KxTsIm8rNMkkYGFoSIXjQ0+0t CbxMF0i2qnpmNRpA6PU8l7lxxvPkplsk9KB8QIPFrR5p/i/SUAd9vECWh5+/ktlc rfFP2PK7XcEwWizsvMrNqLyvQVNXSUPTMYIBrzCCAasCAQEwgYcwcjELMAkGA1UE BhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2Fs Zm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxGDAWBgNVBAMTD0Vzc2Vu dGlhbFNTTCBDQQIRAO7UTVPkm+2Sbks59IdptaUwCQYFKw4DAhoFADANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQB8PNQ6bYnQpWfkHyxnDuvNKw3wrqF2p7JMZm+SuN2qp3R2LpCR mW2LrGtQIm9Iob/QOYH+8houYNVdvsATGPXX2T8gzn+anof4tOG0vCTK1Bp9bwf9 MkRP+1c8RW/vkYmUW4X5/C+y3CZpMH5dDTaXBIpXFzjX/fxNpH/rvLzGiaYYL3Cn OLO+aOADr9qq5yoqwpiYCSfYNNYKTUNNGfYIidQwYtbHXEYhSukB2oR89xD2sZZ4 bOqFjUPgTa5SsERLDDeg3omMKiIXVYGxlqBEq51Kge6IQt4qQV9P9VgInW7cWmKe dTqNHI9ri3ttewdEnT++TKGKKfTjX9SR8Waj -----END NEW CERTIFICATE REQUEST----- Clearly there’s something very different between this an my original request! And it didn’t work. IIS creates a custom CSR that is encoded in a format that no certificate authority I’ve ever used uses. If you want the gory details of what’s in there look at this ServerFault question (thanks to Mika in the comments). In the end it doesn’t matter  though – no certificate authority knows what to do with this CSR. So create a new CSR and skip the renewal. Always! Use the same Server Keep in mind that on IIS at least you should always create your certificate on a single server and then when you receive the final certificate from your provider import it on that server. IIS tracks the CSR it created and requires it in order to import the final certificate properly. So if for some reason you try to install the certificate on another server, it won’t work. I’ve also run into trouble trying to install the same certificate twice – this time around I didn’t give my certificate the proper friendly name and IIS failed to allow me to assign the certificate to any of my Web sites. So I removed the certificate and tried to import again, only to find it failed the second time around. There are other ways to fix this, but in my case I had to have the certificate re-issued to work – not what you want to do. Regardless of what you do though, when you import make sure you do it right the first time by crossing all your t’s and dotting your i's– it’ll save you a lot of grief! You don’t actually have to use the server that the certificate gets installed on to generate the CSR and first install it, but it is generally a good idea to do so just so you can get the certificate installed into the right place right away. If you have access to the server where you need to install the certificate you might as well use it. But you can use another machine to generated the and install the certificate, then export the certificate and move it to another machine as needed. So you can use your Dev machine to create a certificate then export it and install it on a live server. More on installation and back up/export later. Installing the Certificate Once you’ve submitted a CSR request your provider will process the request and eventually issue you a new final certificate that contains another text file with the final key to import into your certificate store. IIS does this by combining the content in your certificate request with the original CSR. If all goes well your new certificate shows up in the certificate list and you’re ready to assign the certificate to your sites. Make sure you use a friendly name that matches domain name of your site. So use *.mysite.com or www.mysite.com or store.mysite.com to ensure IIS recognizes the certificate. I made the mistake of not naming my friendly name this way and found that IIS was unable to link my sites to my wildcard certificate. It needed to have the *. as part of the certificate otherwise the Hostname input field was blanked out. Changing the Friendly Name If you by accidentally used an invalid friendly name you can change it later in the Windows certificate store. Bring up a Run Box Type MMC File | Add/Remove Snap In Add Certificates | Computer Account | Local Computer Drill into Certificates | Personal | Certificates Find your Certificate | Right Click | Properties Edit the Friendly Name | Click OK Backing up your Certificate The first thing you should do once your certificate is successfully installed is to back it up! In case your server crashes or you otherwise lose your configuration this will ensure you have an easy way to recover and reinstall your certificate either on the same server or a different one. If you’re running a server farm or using a wildcard certificate you also need to get the certificate onto other machines and a PFX file import is the easiest way to do this. To back up your certificate select your certificate and choose Export from the context or sidebar menu: The Export Certificate option allows you to export a password protected binary file that you can import in a single step. You can copy the resulting binary PFX file to back up or copy to other machines to install on. Importing the certificate on another machine is as easy as pointing at the PFX file and specifying the password. IIS handles the rest. Assigning a new certificate to your Site Once you have the new certificate installed, all that’s left to do is assign it to your site. In IIS select your Web site and bring up the Site Bindings from the right sidebar. Add a new binding for https, bind it to port 443, specify your hostname and pick the certificate from the pick list. If you’re using a root site make sure to set up your certificate for www.yoursite.com and also for yoursite.com so that both work properly with SSL. Note that you need to explicitly configure each hostname for a certificate if you plan to use SSL. Luckily if you update your SSL certificate in the following year, IIS prompts you and asks whether you like to update all other sites that are using the existing cert to the newer cert. And you’re done. So what’s the Pain? So, all of this is old hat and it doesn’t look all that bad right? So what’s the pain here? Well if you follow the instructions and do everything right, then the process is about as straight forward as you would expect it to be. You create a cert request, you import it and assign it to your sites. That’s the basic steps and to be perfectly fair it works well – if nothing goes wrong. However, renewing tends to be the problem. The first unintuitive issue is that you simply shouldn’t renew but create a new CSR and generate your new certificate from that. Over the years I’ve fallen prey to the belief that Microsoft eventually will fix this so that the renewal creates the same type of CSR as the old cert, but apparently that will just never happen. Booo! The other problem I ran into is that I accidentally misnamed my imported certificate which in turn set off a chain of events that caused my originally issued certificate to become uninstallable. When I received my completed certificate I installed it and it installed just fine, but the friendly name was wrong. As a result IIS refused to assign the certificate to any of my host headered sites. That’s strike number one. Why the heck should the friendly name have any effect on the ability to attach the certificate??? Next I uninstalled the certificate because I figured that would be the easiest way to make sure I get it right. But I found that I could not reinstall my certificate. I kept getting these stop errors: "ASN1 bad tag value met" that would prevent the installation from completion. After searching around for this error and reading countless long messages on forums, I found that this error supposedly does not actually mean the install failed, but the list wouldn’t refresh. Commodo has this to say: Note: There is a known issue in IIS 7 giving the following error: "Cannot find the certificate request associated with this certificate file. A certificate request must be completed on the computer where it was created." You may also receive a message stating "ASN1 bad tag value met". If this is the same server that you generated the CSR on then, in most cases, the certificate is actually installed. Simply cancel the dialog and press "F5" to refresh the list of server certificates. If the new certificate is now in the list, you can continue with the next step. If it is not in the list, you will need to reissue your certificate using a new CSR (see our CSR creation instructions for IIS 7). After creating a new CSR, login to your Comodo account and click the 'replace' button for your certificate. Not sure if this issue is fixed in IIS 8 but that’s an insane bug to have crop up. As it turns out, in my case the refresh didn’t work and the certificate didn’t show up in the IIS list after the reinstall. In fact when looking at the certificate store I could see my certificate was installed in the right place, but the private key is missing which is most likely why IIS is not picking it up. It looks like IIS could not match the final cert to the original CSR generated. But again some sort of message to that affect might be helpful instead of ASN1 bad tag value met. Recovering the Private Key So it turns out my original problem was that I received the published key, but when I imported the private key was missing. There’s a relatively easy way to recover from this. If your certificate doesn’t show up in IIS check in the certificate store for the local machine (see steps above on how to bring this up). If you look at the certificate in Certificates/Personal/Certificates make sure you see the key as shown in the image below: if the key is missing it means that the certificate is missing the private key most likely. To fix a certificate you can do the following: Double click the certificate Go to the Details Tab Copy down the Serial number You can copy the serial number from the area blurred out above. The serial number will be in a format like ?00 a7 9b a1 a4 9d 91 63 57 d6 9f 26 b8 ee 79 b5 cb and you’ll need to strip out the spaces in order to use it in the next step. Next open up an Administrative command prompt and issue the following command: certutil -repairstore my 00a79ba1a49d916357d69f26b8ee79b5cb You should get a confirmation message that the repair worked. If you now go back to the certificate store you should now see the key icon show up on the certificate. Your certificate is fixed. Now go back into IIS Manager and refresh the list of certificates and if all goes well you should see all the certificates that showed in the cert store now: Remember – back up the key first then map to your site… Summary I deal with a lot of customers who run their own IIS servers, and I can’t tell you how often I hear about botched SSL installations. When I posted some of my issues on Twitter yesterday I got a hell storm of “me too” responses. I’m clearly not the only one, who’s run into this especially with renewals. I feel pretty comfortable with IIS configuration and I do a lot of it for support purposes, but the SSL configuration is one that never seems to go seamlessly. This blog post is meant as reminder to myself to read next time I do a renewal. So I can dot my i's and dash my t’s before I get caught in the mess I’m dealing with today. Hopefully some of you find this useful as well.© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2014Posted in IIS7  Security   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • The best, in the West

    - by Fatherjack
    As many of you know, I run the SQL South West user group and we are currently in full flow preparing to stage the UK’s second SQL Saturday. The SQL Saturday spotlight is going to fall on Exeter in March 2013. We have full-day session on Friday 8th with some truly amazing speakers giving their insights and experience into some vital areas of working with SQL Server: Dave Ballantyne and Dave Morrison – TSQL and internals Christian Bolton and Gavin Payne – Mission critical data platforms on Windows Server 2012 Denny Cherry – SQL Server Security André Kamman – Powershell 3.0 for SQL Server Administrators and Developers Mladen Prajdic – From SQL Traces to Extended Events – The next big switch. A number of people have claimed that the choice is too good and they’d have trouble selecting just one session to attend. I can see how this is a problem but hope that they make their minds up quickly. The venue is a bespoke conference suite in the centre of Exeter but has limited capacity so we are working on a first-come first-served basis. All the session details and booking and travel information can be found on our user group website. The Saturday will be a day of free, 50 minute sessions on all aspects SQL Server from almost 30 different speakers. If you would like to submit a session then get a move on as submissions close on 8th January 2013 (That’s less than a month away). We are really interested in getting new speakers started so we have a lightning talk session where you can come along and give a small talk (anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes long) about anything connected with SQL Server as a way to introduce you to what it’s like to be a speaker at an event. Details on registering to attend and to submit a session (Lightning talks need to be submitted too please) can be found on our SQL Saturday pages. This is going to be the biggest and best bespoke SQL Server conference to ever take place this far South West in the UK and we aim to give everyone who comes to either day a real experience of the South West so we have a few surprises for you on the day.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120  | Next Page >