Search Results

Search found 3707 results on 149 pages for 'secure'.

Page 117/149 | < Previous Page | 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124  | Next Page >

• SSL Returning Blank Page, No Catalina Errors

  - by Mr.Peabody

  This is my second, maybe third, time configuring SSL with Tomcat. Earlier I had created a self signed, which worked, and now using my signed is proving fruitless. I am using Tomcat, operating from the Amazon Linux API. When using the signed cert/keystore, my server is starting normally without errors. However, when trying to navigate to the domain it is giving me an "ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH" error. My server.xml file looks as follows: <Connector port="8443" maxHttpHeaderSize="8192" maxThreads="150" minSpareThreads="25" maxSpareThreads="75" enableLookups="false" disableUploadTimeout="true" acceptCount="100" scheme="https" secure="true" SSLEnabled="true" clientAuth="false" sslProtocol="TLS" keystoreFile="/home/ec2-user/.keystore/starchild.jks" keystorePass="d6b5385812252f180b961aa3630df504" /> It couldn't hurt to also mention that I'm using a wildcard certificate. Please let me know if anything looks amiss! EDIT: After looking more into this, I've determined there may be nothing is wrong with the Server.xml, or the listening ports. This is becoming more of an actual certificate error, as the curl request is giving me this error: curl: (35) Unknown SSL protocol error in connection to jira.mywebsite.com:-9824 Though, I can't seem to figure out what the "-9824" is. When comparing this curl to another similar setup (using the same Wildcard Certificate) it's turning up the full handshake, which is to be expected. I believe this is now between the protocol/cypher set default on JIRA servers.

  Read the article

• hosts.deny not blocking ip addresses

  - by Jamie

  I have the following in my /etc/hosts.deny file # # hosts.deny This file describes the names of the hosts which are # *not* allowed to use the local INET services, as decided # by the '/usr/sbin/tcpd' server. # # The portmap line is redundant, but it is left to remind you that # the new secure portmap uses hosts.deny and hosts.allow. In particular # you should know that NFS uses portmap! ALL:ALL and this in /etc/hosts.allow # # hosts.allow This file describes the names of the hosts which are # allowed to use the local INET services, as decided # by the '/usr/sbin/tcpd' server. # ALL:xx.xx.xx.xx , xx.xx.xxx.xx , xx.xx.xxx.xxx , xx.x.xxx.xxx , xx.xxx.xxx.xxx but i am still getting lots of these emails: Time: Thu Feb 10 13:39:55 2011 +0000 IP: 202.119.208.220 (CN/China/-) Failures: 5 (sshd) Interval: 300 seconds Blocked: Permanent Block Log entries: Feb 10 13:39:52 ds-103 sshd[12566]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.119.208.220 user=root Feb 10 13:39:52 ds-103 sshd[12567]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.119.208.220 user=root Feb 10 13:39:52 ds-103 sshd[12568]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.119.208.220 user=root Feb 10 13:39:52 ds-103 sshd[12571]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.119.208.220 user=root Feb 10 13:39:53 ds-103 sshd[12575]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.119.208.220 user=root whats worse is csf is trying to auto block these ip's when the attempt to get in but although it does put ip's in the csf.deny file they do not get blocked either So i am trying to block all ip's with /etc/hosts.deny and allow only the ip's i use with /etc/hosts.allow but so far it doesn't seem to work. right now i'm having to manually block each one with iptables, I would rather it automatically block the hackers in case I was away from a pc or asleep

  Read the article

• Help me understand Ubuntu user/group permissions.

  - by Bartek

  I'm beginning to deal with more than one user on my system (it's a VPS serving some sites) and I need to make sure I understand how group permissions work. Here's my setup: I have an account named "admin" .. it's basically the primary account that is used for serving most of the sites that I control myself. Now, I added a second account named "Ville" as one of my users wants to be able to administer that site. So, I can do this the easy way and just chown their domains folder under the ville user and viola, they have permission to do whatever they need be and so forth. However, let's say I want to also give the admin user access to the files (modifying and all) .. how can I put both users into the same group and give them both permission? I've tried doing: sudo usermod -a -G admin ville To add the ville into the admin group, but ville still cannot edit files by admin. Permissions for the primary directory for the ville user are read/write for both owner and group, and the current group for the files is admin:admin .. But ville still can't write into the directory. So, what should I be doing here to get this right and secure at the same time? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Different approaches to share files over local network

  - by exTyn

  I know, that I can use Google to find methods to share files over local network [1]. But, I have never shared files over local network, and I want to do this in a good, professional way. Also, this could be a good community wiki, I think. Well, what I am asking for, is: what are pros and cons of different methods to sharing files ofver local network? In my case, I need to share files between Linux & Win 7, and I want it to be secure (= without access for anyone else but me & people in my room). Another question (connected with above topic) is about playing music over the local network. Let's say, I live with 2 other guys in a room, one of us have speakers and we want to collaborate in creating playlists (e.g. everyone is choosing 3 songs to be played). Is it possible? How to do this? I am asking this question on SuperUser, because it (question) is connected with hardware & software (network, connecting computers, software for managing playlists in network etc.). I think it is most accurate place for such question (I have considered SO and SF). [1] And I have already done this! But, I do not have an experience in this field (sharing files over local network), do I am asking about pros and cons.

  Read the article

• Different approaches to share files over local network & playlists "collaboration"

  - by exTyn

  I know, that I can use Google to find methods to share files over local network [1]. But, I have never shared files over local network, and I want to do this in a good, professional way. Also, this could be a good community wiki, I think. Well, what I am asking for, is: what are pros and cons of different methods to sharing files ofver local network? In my case, I need to share files between Linux & Win 7, and I want it to be secure (= without access for anyone else but me & people in my room). Another question (connected with above topic) is about playing music over the local network. Let's say, I live with 2 other guys in a room, one of us have speakers and we want to collaborate in creating playlists (e.g. everyone is choosing 3 songs to be played). Is it possible? How to do this? I am asking this question on SuperUser, because it (question) is connected with hardware & software (network, connecting computers, software for managing playlists in network etc.). I think it is most accurate place for such question (I have considered SO and SF). [1] And I have already done this! But, I do not have an experience in this field (sharing files over local network), do I am asking about pros and cons.

  Read the article

• Private staff network within public network

  - by pianohacker

  I'm the sysadmin at a small public library. Since I got here a few years ago, I've been trying to set up the network in a secure and simple way. Security is a little tricky; the staff and patron networks need to be separated, for security reasons. Even if I further isolated the public wireless, I'd still rather not trust the security of our public computers. However, the two networks also need to communicate; even if I set up enough VMs so they didn't share any servers, they need to use the same two printers at the very least. Currently, I'm solving this with some jerry-rigged commodity equipment. The patron network, linked together by switches, has a Windows server connected to it for DNS and DHCP and a DSL modem for a gateway. Also on the patron network is the WAN side of a Linksys router. This router is the "top" of the staff network, and has the same Windows server connected on a different port, providing DNS and DHCP, and another, faster DSL modem (separate connections are very useful, especially as we heavily depend on some cloud-hosted software). tl;dr: We have a public network, and a NATed staff network within it. My question is; is this really the best way to do this? The right equipment would likely make my job easier, but anything with more than four ports and even rudimentary management quickly becomes a heavy hit on our budget. (My original question was about an ungodly frustrating DHCP routing issue, but I thought I'd ask whether my network was broken rather than asking about the DHCP problem and being told my network was broken.)

  Read the article

• PHP-FPM issue on LEMP Stack and WordPress

  - by jw60660

  I'm very much a NGINX and Server Admin beginner. I used this tutorial to install NGINX / PHP / mySQL / WordPress: C3M Digital Tutorial In this tutorial the backend php-cgi setup is configured using fastcgi. php5-fpm was installed during this tutorial: apt-get install nginx-full php5-fpm php5 php5-mysql php5-apc php5-mysql php5-xsl php5-xmlrpc php5-sqlite php5-snmp php5-curl After reading that the NGINX configuration on the WordPress codec was more secure than most tutorials, I decided to use the codex configuration: WordPress NGINX configuration in Codex The Codex configuration uses php-fpm for backend php-cgi. When opening the browser I got a 502 Bad Gateway error. The error log was: "2012/06/10 21:18:27 [crit] 14009#0: *4 connect() to unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock failed (2: No such file or directory) while connecting to upstream, client: 12.3.456.789, server: mywebsite.com, request: "GET / HTTP/1.1", upstream: "fastcgi://unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock:", hos t: "mywebsite.com"" In the main NGINX configuration file supplied by the codex I noticed the line starting "server unix:" in the upstream php block which point to the empty directory: # Upstream to abstract backend connection(s) for PHP. upstream php { server unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock; # server 127.0.0.1:9000; } I checked the folder at /tmp and it was empty. Seems I missed configuring php-fpm to play with NGINX. Can someone point me in the right direction? Much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Self-Resetting Power Strips?

  - by Justin Scott

  We are about to deploy a number of secure kiosks into an environment where they may be prone to lightning strikes and power surges on a somewhat regular basis (southern Florida in a place where the existing electrical infrastructure is, shall we say, a bit out of date). Ideally we would use battery backups on each system, but it's not in the budget. We plan to use a standard power strip with a circuit breaker built-in to protect the computers, but management has asked if there is a power strip that can reset itself after the breaker has been tripped. I've looked around and wasn't able to find such a beast, and it seems to me that it would probably be a safety issue for such a product to exist (e.g. if something plugged into the strip is drawing a lot of current and trips the breaker, you wouldn't want that resetting itself to prevent a possible fire). Nevertheless, if anyone has experience with such a product or can point me in the direction of something that would allow the breakers to be reset automatically or remotely (we don't want to have to send someone to each kiosk every time there is a power surge) I would appreciate any tips.

  Read the article

• Migrating to CF9: trouble getting JRun working with SSL

  - by DaveBurns

  I have a client on MX7 who wants to migrate to CF9. I have a dev environment for them on my WinXP machine where I've configured MX7 to run with JRun's built-in web server. I've had that working for a long time with both regular and SSL connections. I installed CF9 yesterday side-by-side with the existing MX7 install to start testing. The install was smooth and detected MX7, adjusted CF9's port numbers for no conflict, etc. Testing started well: MX7 over regular and SSL still worked and CF9 worked over regular HTTP. But I can't get CF9 to work with SSL. I installed a new certificate with keytool, FireFox (v3.6) complained about it being unsigned, I added it to the exception list, and now I get this: Secure Connection Failed An error occurred during a connection to localhost:9101. Peer reports it experienced an internal error. (Error code: ssl_error_internal_error_alert) I've been Googling that in all variations but can't find much help to get past this. I don't see any info in any log files either. FWIW, here's my SSL config from SERVER-INF/jrun.xml: <service class="jrun.servlet.http.SSLService" name="SSLService"> <attribute name="enabled">true</attribute>` <attribute name="interface">*</attribute> <attribute name="port">9101</attribute> <attribute name="keyStore">{jrun.rootdir}/lib/mykey</attribute> <attribute name="keyStorePassword">*deleted*</attribute> <attribute name="trustStore">{jrun.rootdir}/lib/trustStore</attribute> <attribute name="socketFactoryName">jrun.servlet.http.JRunSSLServerSocketFactory</attribute> <attribute name="deactivated">false</attribute> <attribute name="bindAddress">*</attribute> <attribute name="clientAuth">false</attribute> </service> Anyone here know of any issues re setting up SSL and CF9? Anyone had success with it? Dave

  Read the article

• ProFTPD / PAM issues with new centos/virtualmin install

  - by iamthewit

  Hi All, I just installed CentOS 5.4 on a rackspace cloud server and installed virtualmin which all seemed to go fine. The only problem I have is that I can not access the virtual servers directories via FTP. I get the following from filezilla: Status: Connecting to 1.1.1.1:21... Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message... Response: 220 FTP Server ready. Command: USER username Response: 331 Password required for username. Command: PASS ******* Response: 230 User username logged in. Status: Connected Status: Retrieving directory listing... Command: PWD Response: 257 "/" is current directory. Command: TYPE I Response: 200 Type set to I Command: PASV Response: 227 Entering Passive Mode (1,1,1,1,216,214) Command: LIST Error: Connection timed out Error: Failed to retrieve directory listing and I get this from my /var/secure/log file Sep 22 19:40:42 stickeeserver proftpd: pam_unix(proftpd:session): session opened for user username by (uid=0) Sep 22 19:40:42 server proftpd[14051]: 94.136.40.82 (::ffff:217.207.31.60[::ffff:217.207.31.60]) - USER nastypasty: Login successful. Sep 22 19:40:42 server proftpd[14051]: 94.136.40.82 (::ffff:217.207.31.60[::ffff:217.207.31.60]) - Preparing to chroot to directory '/home/username' Sep 22 19:40:42 server proftpd[14051]: 94.136.40.82 (::ffff:217.207.31.60[::ffff:217.207.31.60]) - mod_delay/0.5: delaying for 728 usecs Sep 22 19:40:42 server proftpd[14051]: 94.136.40.82 (::ffff:217.207.31.60[::ffff:217.207.31.60]) - error setting IPV6_V6ONLY: Protocol not available Any help would be greatly appreciated, I'm not totally new to Linux but it's not my strongest subject. I do like to know exactly why problems occur though and how exactly to fix them so the more detail the better! cheers

  Read the article

• Securing SSH/SFTP and best practices on security

  - by MultiformeIngegno

  I'm on a fresh VPS with Ubuntu Server 12.04. I wanted to ask you the good practices to apply to enhance security over a stock Ubuntu-server. This is what I did up to now: I added Google Authenticator to SSH, then I created a new user (whom I'll use instead of 'root' for SSH & SFTP access) which I added to my /etc/sudoers list below 'root', so now it's: # User privilege specification root ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL new_user ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL Then I edited sshd_config and set PermitRootLogin to 'no'. Then restarted the ssh service. Is this ok? There are a few things I'd like to ask you though: 1) What's the sense of adding a new (sudoer) user whilst the root user still exist (ok it can't access with root privilege but it's still there..)? 2) System files are owned by 'root'.. I want to use my new_user to access via SFTP but with it I can't edit those files!! Should I mass-CHMOD 'em so that new_user has write perms too? What's the good practice on this? Thanks in advance, I hope you'll tell me if I did something wrong and/or other ways to secure the system. :)

  Read the article

• Mac OS X Disk Encryption - Automation

  - by jfm429

  I want to setup a Mac Mini server with an external drive that is encrypted. In Finder, I can use the full-disk encryption option. However, for multiple users, this could become tricky. What I want to do is encrypt the external volume, then set things up so that when the machine boots, the disk is unlocked so that all users can access it. Of course permissions need to be maintained, but that goes without saying. What I'm thinking of doing is setting up a root-level launchd script that runs once on boot and unlocks the disk. The encryption keys would probably be stored in root's keychain. So here's my list of concerns: If I store the encryption keys in the system keychain, then the file in /private/var/db/SystemKey could be used to unlock the keychain if an attacker ever gained physical access to the server. this is bad. If I store the encryption keys in my user keychain, I have to manually run the command with my password. This is undesirable. If I run a launchd script with my user credentials, it will run under my user account but won't have access to the keychain, defeating the purpose. If root has a keychain (does it?) then how would it be decrypted? Would it remain locked until the password was entered (like the user keychain) or would it have the same problem as the system keychain, with keys stored on the drive and accessible with physical access? Assuming all of the above works, I've found diskutil coreStorage unlockVolume which seems to be the appropriate command, but the details of where to store the encryption key is the biggest problem. If the system keychain is not secure enough, and user keychains require a password, what's the best option?

  Read the article

• Pros and Cons of a proxy/gateway server

  - by Curtis

  I'm working with a web app that uses two machines, a BSD server and a Windows 2000 server. When someone goes to our website, they are connected to the BSD server which, using Apache's proxy module, relays the requests & responses between them and the web server on the Windows server. The idea (designed and deployed about 9 years ago) was that it was more secure to have the BSD server as what outside people connected to than the Windows server running the web app. The BSD server is a bare bones install with all unnecessary services & applications removed. These servers are about to be replaced and the big question is, is a cut-down, barebones server necessary for security in this setup. From my research online I don’t see anyone else running a setup like this (I don't see anyone questioning it at least.) If they have a server between the user and the web app server(s), it is caching, compressing, and/or load balancing. Is there anything I’m overlooking by letting people connect directly from the internet ** to a Windows 2008 R2 server that’s running the web application? ** there’s a good hardware firewall between the internet with only minimal ports open Thank you.

  Read the article

• How Can I Make Apache Stop Serving ALL Unknown File Types (like .php~)?

  - by user223304

  I am coming from IIS and moving to Apache and recently found out that Apache by default serves up files of an unknown file extension as PURE TEXT. This can be an issue if a user uses certain programs that back up .php files as .php~. Then the .php~ file becomes completely readable by simply navigating to it in a browser. To make matters worse these .php~ files are often considered 'hidden' in the linux environment from the user so some may not even know they exist. Bots have been created around this fact that scour the internet looking for popular file name backups and extracting potentially secure info from them. I already know how to stop serving up .php~ files or any specific file extensions. I also know not to use any editors that would save backup files like this. My question is, how can I stop this default Apache behavior of serving up ANY non-MIME file type at all? I just don't like the this behavior and would like to stop it. I don't want it serving up .aspx~, .html~, .bob, .carl, no extension or anything else that is not a real MIME type. I know that I can probably go and use a directive to first Deny access to all file types. Then add the ones I want to serve out one by one. But I'm wondering if there's an easier/quicker way. Thanks for any help.

  Read the article

• Client certificate based encryption

  - by Timo Willemsen

  I have a question about security of a file on a webserver. I have a file on my webserver which is used by my webapplication. It's a bitcoin wallet. Essentially it's a file with a private key in it used to decrypt messages. Now, my webapplication uses the file, because it's used to recieve transactions made trough the bitcoin network. I was looking into ways to secure it. Obviously if someone has root access to the server, he can do the same as my application. However, I need to find a way to encrypt it. I was thinking of something like this, but I have no clue if this is actually going to work: Client logs in with some sort of client certificate. Webapplication creates a wallet file. Webapplication encrypts file with client certificate. If the application wants to access the file, it has to use the client certificate. So basically, if someone gets root access to the site, they cannot access the wallet. Is this possible and does anyone know about an implementation of this? Are there any problems with this? And how safe would this be?

  Read the article

• what is the fastest way to copy all data to a new larger hard drive?

  - by SUPER user

  I was certain this would have been covered before, but I cannot find an answer amongst all the almost-duplicates that come up; sorry if I've missed something obvious. I have a full 320gb disk inside my machine, a new 1tb disk to replace it, and a USB 2.0 chassis. It is only data on a single partition, no OS/apps involved, and the old drive will be kept somewhere as backup (no secure wiping etc). The simple option would be to put new disk in USB chassis, copy files, then swap them over. But for USB pen drives, reading is around 4x faster than writing. If the same is true for a USB SATA chassis (is it?) then it would be significantly faster to swap the drives first and read from the old drive over USB, right? Then the other consideration is that copying lots of files is usually slower than a single file of equivalent size. Is Windows 7 smart enough to do everything in a single lump like that, or is there specialised software that should be used instead? (Even if SATA-SATA copying is faster than involving USB, knowing what to do when it isn't an option is useful information.) Summary: Does a USB SATA chassis suffer from a read/write inequality? (like a USB pen drive does, but unlike a direct SATA connection) Can Windows 7 do sequential access? (I can't find confirmation if Robocopy does this.) Or is it necessary to use a bootable CD/USB with something like Clonezilla to achieve sequential copy speeds?

  Read the article

• PostgreSQL user authentication against PAM

  - by elmuerte

  I am trying to set up authentication via PAM for PostgreSQL 9.3. I already managed to get this working on an Ubuntu 12.04 server, but I am unable to get this working on a Centos-6 install. The relevant pg_hba.conf line: host all all 0.0.0.0/0 pam pamservice=postgresql93 The pam.d/postgressql93 is the default config shipped with the official postgresql 9.3 package: #%PAM-1.0 auth include password-auth account include password-auth When a user tries to authenticate the following is reported in secure log: hostname unix_chkpwd[31807]: check pass; user unknown hostname unix_chkpwd[31808]: check pass; user unknown hostname unix_chkpwd[31808]: password check failed for user (myuser) hostname postgres 10.1.0.1(61459) authentication: pam_unix(postgresql93:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=26 euid=26 tty= ruser= rhost= user=myuser The relevant content of password-auth config is: auth required pam_env.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet auth required pam_deny.so account required pam_unix.so account sufficient pam_localuser.so account sufficient pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet account required pam_permit.so The problem is with the pam_unix.so. It is unable to validate the password, and unable to retrieve the user info (when I remove the auth entry of pam_unix.so). The Centos-6 install is only 5 days old, so it does not have a lot of baggage. The unix_chkpwd is suid and has execute rights for everybody, so it should be able to check the shadow file (which has no privileges at all?).

  Read the article

• Multiple static WAN IP addresses to single LAN subnet

  - by Jessy Houle

  Below is my home network topology. I currently have 5 static IP addresses, 3 of which are in use by 3 routers. These routers in-turn subnet internal networks and port forward. I use my SSL VPN appliance to remote home from work or on the road. At this point I can remotely administer my Windows Server. I know the network is setup wrong, I was matching existing hardware the best I knew how. http://storage.jessyhoule.com.s3.amazonaws.com/network_topology.jpg Ok this said, here is the problem... One of my websites on my Windows Server now needs to be secure (SSL using port 443). However, I'm already port forwarding port 443 to my VPN appliance. Furthermore, if I'm going to have to reconfigure the network, I would really like to be able to use the SSL VPN to remotely administer all machines. I mentioned this to a friend of mine, who said that what I was looking for was a firewall. Explaining that a firewall would take in multiple static (WAN) IP addresses, and still allow all internal devices to be on the same network. So, basically, I could supply my SSL VPN appliance it's very own static (WAN) IP address routing, and yet have it on the same internal network (192.168.1.x) as all my other devices. The first question is... Does this sound right? Secondly, would you suggest anything different? And, finally, what is the cheapest way to do this? I am started down the road of downloading/installing untangle and smoothwall to see if they will do the job, hoping they take multiple static (WAN) IP addresses. Thank you in advance for your answers. -Jessy Houle

  Read the article

• How private is the Opera Turbo feature of Opera?

  - by Marcus V

  If I'm using Opera with the Opera Turbo feature turned on (always, not set to "automaticly"). Can anyone see what sites I'm visiting (except Opera of course ...)? Opera Turbo uses a proxy server, so it should be that way, but as a not very technical person I'm not sure. Why do I want this? Well: nowadays, at least in my country, more and more (legal) open Wi-Fi connections are available. In those environments I like to have more privacy protections. I don't mind if they can see my IP address, but I just want to hide as much as I can of what I am doing. BTW: I don't care that they can see the data transferred; it doesn't have to be that secret. I only want to hide the requested Internet site links. BTW: I know that Opera Turbo only works with non-secure websites (HTTP), but that's fine for me. I only want it to work with these sites. BTW: I'm not need this for illegal purposes; I only want this for privacy reasons.

  Read the article

• Can't connect to Synology DiskStation through HTTPS when using Windows 7 Import

  - by LeonidasFett

  a little background to my problem: I have a Synology DiskStation 213j that I use as a backup/data storage solution. When I'm at work, I would like to push and pull files from my DiskStation but I can't use VPN which is forbidden for outgoing connections. So I wanted to try to use HTTPS so I can at least connect securely to the web interface. I mostly use Chrome which uses the Windows Certificate Store. So I tried importing a self-signed certificate into it, without success. I still get a warning in Chrome telling me the connection is not secure because it can't be verified. When I import the certificate into Firefox though, it works and I can connect through HTTPS. I checked my domain on this site: http://www.sslshopper.com/ssl-checker.html It shows no errors, only a warning that the certificate is self-signed. Which is OK in this case. Any got any idea why importing the certificate into Windows 7 doesn't work? I tried Right-Click domain.mydomain.de.crt File --> Install certificate --> Next --> both options here (in case of "Place certificate in following store:" I selected "Third Party Root Certificate Authorities") to no avail.

  Read the article

• Configure tomcat behind loadbalancer to respond on HTTP and HTTPS

  - by user253530

  I have 2 tomcat machines behind a load balancer on Amazon EC2. Until now The load balancer was configured to respond only on https. So in order to access our services you would go to https://url. Tomcat was configured to listen on 8080 but the connector had additional params that would tell tomcat that it is behind a proxy and that it should respond on HTTPS 443. The connector looks like this: <Connector scheme="https" secure="true" proxyPort="443" proxyHost="my.domain.name" port="8080" protocol="HTTP/1.1" connectionTimeout="20000" redirectPort="8443" useBodyEncodingForURI="true" URIEncoding="UTF-8" /> What i would like to do is to open port 80 on the load balancer and basically allow traffic on HTTP and HTTPS. I've configured the load balancer to redirect all HTTP traffic to the tomcat machines on port 8088. I was thinking that i could define a new connector so that all HTTPS traffic goes to 8080 and HTTP to 8088. Unfortunately i did not succeed. Here is my connector <Connector port="8088" protocol="HTTP/1.1" connectionTimeout="20000" redirectPort="8443" useBodyEncodingForURI="true" URIEncoding="UTF-8" /> Am I missing something? Thanks

  Read the article

• Cannot connect to remote mail server for sending emails in ASP.NET

  - by Dave

  I want to migrate a web application from a Windows Server 2003 to a Windows Server 2008 R2. All works fine except sending emails from the application. If I configure the application to use the smtp server on "localhost" it works, but changing it to the "real" host name (e.g. mail.example.org) no mail is sent. The error message says, that the remote server needs a secure connection or smtp authentication. But since it works when using "localhost" instead of the host name I doubt that this is the problem. Also it's unlikely a problem with the mail server, I also tried it with another one. So for me it seems like the firewall is blocking the outgoing connection to the mail server. I tried to open port 25, but it still did not work. Maybe I just did it the wrong way. Update: For clarifying my setup: I have a Windows Server 2008 R2 with hMailServer installed (set up for some of the hosted domains) For the website I'm talking about I need to use an external mail server (totally different hosting provider) Apparently I was a bit off the track. It seems like it works when using connecting to the local mail server either with the host name "localhost" or "mail.somedomain.com" (while somedomain.com is set up in my mail server). But when using the host name of the external mail server ("mail.externaldomain.com") it seems like it tries to connect to the local server again, although this domain is not set up in the mail server. Thanks to Evan Anderson for the tip to use telnet - why I have not thought of it myself?... :-) Note, the website www.externaldomain.com is hosted on my server but the DNS entries are maintained by the other hosting provider. "externaldomain.com" is the only entry which points to my server all other records (MX, subdomains) are pointing to the other server. So I think the question is now, how do i bring my server to connect to the external mailserver. Do I have to configure this in my mail server or is it a windows server thing?

  Read the article

• configs for several sites in apache with ssl

  - by elCapitano

  i need to secure two different sites in apache. One of them should only be a proxy for a different server which is running on port 8069. Now one (which is natively included in apache) runs with SSL: <VirtualHost *:443> ServerName 192.168.1.20 SSLEngine on SSLCertificateFile /etc/ssl/erp/oeserver.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/ssl/erp/oeserver.key DocumentRoot /var/www/cloud ServerPath /cloud/ #CustomLog /var/www/logs/ssl-access_log combined #ErrorLog /var/www/logs/ssl-error_log </VirtualHost> The other one is not running and even not registered. When i try to access it, i get an exception (ssl_error_rx_record_too_long): <VirtualHost *:443> ServerName 192.168.1.20 ServerPath /erp/ SSLEngine on SSLCertificateFile /etc/ssl/erp/oeserver.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/ssl/erp/oeserver.key ProxyRequests Off ProxyPreserveHost On <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyVia On ProxyPass / http://127.0.0.1:8069/ ProxyPassReverse / http://127.0.0.1:8069 RewriteEngine on RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://127.0.0.1:8069/$1 [P] RequestHeader set "X-Forwarded-Proto" "https" SetEnv proxy-nokeepalive 1 </VirtualHost> My whish is the following configuration: 192.168.1.20 ->> unsecured local path to website 192.168.1.20/cloud/ ->> secured local documentpath from cloud 192.168.1.20/erp/ ->> secured proxy on port 80 for http://192.168.1.20:8069 how is this possible? is this even possible? perhaps cloud.192.168.1.20 and erp.192.168.1.20 is better?! Thank you

  Read the article

• How do I set up a shared directory on Linux?

  - by JR Lawhorne

  I have a linux server I want to use to share files between users in my company. Users will access the machine with sftp or secure shell. Here is what I have: cd /home ls -l drwxrwsr-x 5 userA staff 4096 Jul 22 15:00 shared (other listings omitted) I want all users in the staff group to be able to create, modify, delete any file and/or directory in the shared folder. I don't want anyone else to have access to the folder at all. I have: Added the users to the staff group by modifying /etc/group and running grpconv to update /etc/gshadow Run chown -R userA.staff /home/shared Run chmod -R 2775 /home/shared Now, users in the staff group can create new files but they aren't allowed to open the existing files in the directory for edit. I suspect this is due to the primary group id associated with each user which is still set to be the group created when the user was created. So, the PGID of user 'userA' is 'userA'. I'd rather not change the primary group of the users to 'staff' if I can help it but if it is the easiest option, I would consider it. And, a variation on a theme, I'd like to do this same thing with another directory but also allow the apache user to read files in the directory and serve them. What's the best way to set this up?

  Read the article

• lighttpd with multiple IPs, each with a UCC certificate and many hostnames

  - by Dave

  I'd like to get lighttpd working with UCC certificates, but I can't seem to figure out the correct syntax. Essentially, for each IP address, I have one UCC certificate and a bunch of hostnames. $SERVER["socket"] == "10.0.0.1:443" { ssl.engine = "enable" ssl.ca-file = "/etc/ssl/certs/the.ca.cert.pem" ssl.pemfile = "/etc/ssl/private/websitegroup1.com.pem" $HTTP["host"] =~ "mywebsite.com" { server.document-root = /var/www/mywebsite.com/htdocs" } The above code works fine for one hostname, but as soon as I try to set up another hostname (note the same SSL cert): $SERVER["socket"] == "10.0.0.1:443" { ssl.engine = "enable" ssl.ca-file = "/etc/ssl/certs/the.ca.cert.pem" ssl.pemfile = "/etc/ssl/private/websitegroup1.com.pem" $HTTP["host"] =~ "anotherwebsite.com" { server.document-root = /var/www/anotherwebsite.com/htdocs" } ...I get this error: Duplicate config variable in conditional 6 global/SERVERsocket==10.0.0.1:443: ssl.engine Is there any way I can put a conditional so that only if ssl.engine is not already enabled, enable it? Or do I have to put all my $HTTP["host"]s inside the same $SERVER["socket"] (which will make config file management more difficult for me) or is there some entirely different way to do it? This has to be repeated for multiple IPs too (so I'll have a bunch of SERVER["socket"] == 10.0.0.2:443" etc), each with one UCC cert and many hostnames. Am I going about this the wrong way entirely? My goal is to conserve IP addresses when I have many websites that are related and can share an SSL certificate, but still need their own SSL-accessible version from the appropriate hostname (instead of a single secure.mywebsite.com).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124  | Next Page >