Search Results

Search found 13454 results on 539 pages for 'ws security'.

Page 128/539 | < Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >

• TeamViewer - only allow domain logins

  - by BloodyIron

  I recently started a Systems Admin job where teamviewer is used pretty frequently here. Another admin recently left, and the concern is they still have access to all our systems due to how teamviewer works. I want to migrate the entire environment to domain authentication. The documentation shows that setting up windows auth (domain) is easy, but I want to be sure that it is the only way to be authenticated with a teamviewer session here. I cannot yet find anything which explicitly says this. We have licensing for teamviewer 5 and 6, I think. Right now we have 7 in the environment, but I think most are in a trial version, so I am likely to revert to 5 or 6.

  Read the article

• How to disable mod_security2 rule (false positive) for one domain on centos 5

  - by nicholas.alipaz

  Hi I have mod_security enabled on a centos5 server and one of the rules is keeping a user from posting some text on a form. The text is legitimate but it has the words 'create' and an html <table> tag later in it so it is causing a false positive. The error I am receiving is below: [Sun Apr 25 20:36:53 2010] [error] [client 76.171.171.xxx] ModSecurity: Access denied with code 500 (phase 2). Pattern match "((alter|create|drop)[[:space:]]+(column|database|procedure|table)|delete[[:space:]]+from|update.+set.+=)" at ARGS:body. [file "/usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf"] [line "352"] [id "300015"] [rev "1"] [msg "Generic SQL injection protection"] [severity "CRITICAL"] [hostname "www.mysite.com"] [uri "/node/181/edit"] [unique_id "@TaVDEWnlusAABQv9@oAAAAD"] and here is /usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf (line 352) #Generic SQL sigs SecRule ARGS "((alter|create|drop)[[:space:]]+(column|database|procedure|table)|delete[[:space:]]+from|update.+set.+=)" "id:1,rev:1,severity:2,msg:'Generic SQL injection protection'" The questions I have are: What should I do to "whitelist" or allow this rule to get through? What file do I create and where? How should I alter this rule? Can I set it to only be allowed for the one domain, since it is the only one having the issue on this dedicated server or is there a better way to exclude table tags perhaps? Thanks guys

  Read the article

• Disallow root to su on a user which is not listed in /etc/passwd

  - by marc.riera

  Hello, on linux we autenticate users against AD. The AD users are not listed on /etc/passwd. We are about to deploy a NFS solution to mount some extra space for each group of users. If a user(A) with sudo su privileges goes to root, then he can impersonate user(B) just by su user(B) and going to the NFS. Is there any way to disallow root to su user if the user is not listed on /etc/passwd ? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Problem with testsaslauthd and kerberos5 ("saslauthd internal error")

  - by danorton

  The error message “saslauthd internal error” seems like a catch-all for saslauthd, so I’m not sure if it’s a red herring, but here’s the brief description of my problem: This Kerberos command works fine: $ echo getprivs | kadmin -p username -w password Authenticating as principal username with password. kadmin: getprivs current privileges: GET ADD MODIFY DELETE But this SASL test command fails: $ testsaslauthd -u username -p password 0: NO "authentication failed" saslauthd works fine with "-a sasldb", but the above is with "-a kerberos5" This is the most detail I seem to be able to get from saslauthd: saslauthd[]: auth_krb5: krb5_get_init_creds_password: -1765328353 saslauthd[]: do_auth : auth failure: [user=username] [service=imap] [realm=] [mech=kerberos5] [reason=saslauthd internal error] Kerberos seems happy: krb5kdc[](info): AS_REQ (4 etypes {18 17 16 23}) 127.0.0.1: ISSUE: authtime 1298779891, etypes {rep=18 tkt=18 ses=18}, username at REALM for krbtgt/DOMAIN at REALM I’m running Ubuntu 10.04 (lucid) with the latest updates, namely: Kerberos 5 release 1.8.1 saslauthd 2.1.23 Thanks for any clues.

  Read the article

• What will happen if I (accidentaly) pour a bucket of water inside my pc?

  - by ULTRA_POROV

  Is it dangerous what will happen to me and the PC? EDIT: It's a serious question, the other day i almost spilled a bottle of cola inside my pc (the case was open).

  Read the article

• Real benefits of tcp TIME-WAIT and implications in production environment

  - by user64204

  SOME THEORY I've been doing some reading on tcp TIME-WAIT (here and there) and what I read is that it's a value set to 2 x MSL (maximum segment life) which keeps a connection in the "connection table" for a while to guarantee that, "before your allowed to create a connection with the same tuple, all the packets belonging to previous incarnations of that tuple will be dead". Since segments received (apart from SYN under specific circumstances) while a connection is either in TIME-WAIT or no longer existing would be discarded, why not close the connection right away? Q1: Is it because there is less processing involved in dealing with segments from old connections and less processing to create a new connection on the same tuple when in TIME-WAIT (i.e. are there performance benefits)? If the above explanation doesn't stand, the only reason I see the TIME-WAIT being useful would be if a client sends a SYN for a connection before it sends remaining segments for an old connection on the same tuple in which case the receiver would re-open the connection but then get bad segments and and would have to terminate it. Q2: Is this analysis correct? Q3: Are there other benefits to using TIME-WAIT? SOME PRACTICE I've been looking at the munin graphs on a production server that I administrate. Here is one: As you can see there are more connections in TIME-WAIT than ESTABLISHED, around twice as many most of the time, on some occasions four times as many. Q4: Does this have an impact on performance? Q5: If so, is it wise/recommended to reduce the TIME-WAIT value (and what to)? Q6: Is this ratio of TIME-WAIT / ESTABLISHED connections normal? Could this be related to malicious connection attempts?

  Read the article

• Securing DRAC/ILO

  - by The Diamond Z

  This might be a dumb question but DRAC/ILO both have HTTP server interfaces. If I were trolling IP's port 80 on and I came across such a page I'd know it to be a high value target in the sense that if I can crack it, I can take control of the server to some extent (potentially installing another OS). Other than changing the port, what are the best practices for securing DRAC/ILO on public Internet facing machines?

  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

• How can I lock my Mac when I walk away?

  - by schnapple

  This has got to be an easy, trivial question but as a new Mac user, how can I lock my Mac when I walk away? On Windows this is dead simple - Win+L. Or hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and select "Lock this Computer" The best thing I've found for the Mac is to rig the screensaver to require password on wake, set a hot corner to fire off the screen saver, and do that as I leave. Which feels really "Windows 3.1" to me. Is there a Win+L-style method to quickly lock my Mac when I walk away?

  Read the article

• WEIRD netstat behavior on Windows XP re: www.partypoker.com

  - by tbone

  I really don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I would really appreciate if someone that is more savvy on Windows XP (Professional) could help me out. For background, I am a 10+ years programmer, so I'm not a total idiot, but I am far from an expert on TCP/IP, etc, and this has me totally confused. When I do a netstat (on Windows XP) I seem to always get a huge amount of www.partypoker.com connections and I can't figure out where they are coming from. A netstat -o shows me that some are coming from PID xxx, which is firefox, but if I kill it, the connections still remain. Some are coming from PID 0, which makes no sense to me. SECOND PROBLEM: One would think you could edit the C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file to block this, but it seems like my machine is ignoring the hosts file! (I have tried with the DNS client service both enabled and disabled, same result). So I just rebooted, killed all my normal programs, and I can't seem to reproduce the problem. If I was a paranoid person, I would think there was some sort of an intelligent trojan running. I am running Windows XP Pro, Kaspersky Antivirus, ccCleaner, and am fully up to date on Windows Update. What gives???? So, I guess my questions are: 1. Is anyone else seeing these wird connections to partypoker.com? 2. Why isn't my hosts filter working? 3. Is there some utility I can run to find out whats happening? I've tried autoruns.exe from sysinternals but don't see anything interesting. Am I the only one with this problem? If there are any additional things you need me to run, let me know.

  Read the article

• Disable mod_security on Dreamhost, for a single cgi script

  - by Hippyjim

  Hi I've searched around a lot, and tried various tweaks to .htaccess files to try to turn off mod_security for a particular cgi script (uber uploader) but it doesn't seem to have any effect. The most popular one I see rehashed all over the web is: # Turn off mod_security filtering. SecFilterEngine Off # The below probably isn't needed, # but better safe than sorry. SecFilterScanPOST Off Which looks relative simple to me - if "SecFilterEngine" is in some way related to mod_security of course. Shame it has absolutely no effect! Does anyone have a suggested way I can simply disable it for a request to any file in my cgi-bin directory?

  Read the article

• How secure are third party Ubuntu (APT) repository mirrors

  - by bakytn

  Hello! We have locally an Ubuntu mirrors to save a lot of traffic (our external traffic is not free) So whenever I apt-get install "program" it gets from that repository. the question is...basically they can substitute any package with their own? So it's 100% on my own risk and I can be hacked easily on any apt-get upgrade or a-g install or a-g dist-upgrade? for example the very basic ones like "telnet" or any other.

  Read the article

• Why do we need Hash by key? [migrated]

  - by Royi Namir

  (i'm just trying to find what am I missing...) Assuming John have a clear text message , he can create a regular hash ( like md5 , or sha256) and then encrypt the message. John can now send Paul the message + its (clear text)hash and Paul can know if the message was altered. ( decrypt and then compare hashes). Even if an attacker can change the encrpyted data ( without decrypt) - - when paul will open the message - and recalc the hash - it wont generate the same hash as the one john sent him. so why do we need hash by key ?

  Read the article

• What is the EGG environment variable?

  - by Randall

  A user on our (openSuSE) linux systems attempted to run sudo, and triggered an alert. He has the environment variable EGG set - EGG=UH211åH1ÒH»ÿ/bin/shHÁSH211çH1ÀPWH211æ°;^O^Ej^A_j<X^O^EÉÃÿ This looks unusual to say the least. Is EGG a legitimate environment variable? (I've found some references to PYTHON_EGG_CACHE - could be related? But that environment variable isn't set for this user). If it's legit, then I imagine this group has the best chance of recognizing it. Or, given the embedded /bin/sh in the string above, does anyone recognize this as an exploit fingerprint? It wouldn't be the first time we had a cracked account (sigh).

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Server attack? how to solve?

  - by saky

  Hello, Something (Someone) is sending out UDP packets sent from our whole ip range. This seems to be multicast DNS. Our server host provided this (Our IP Address is masked with XX): Jun 3 11:02:13 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:23 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:32 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:35 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 I checked my /var/log/auth.log file and found out that someone from China (Using ip-locator) was trying to get in to the server using ssh. ... Jun 3 11:32:00 server2 sshd[28511]: Failed password for root from 202.100.108.25 port 39047 ssh2 Jun 3 11:32:08 server2 sshd[28514]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.100.108.25 user=root Jun 3 11:32:09 server2 sshd[28514]: Failed password for root from 202.100.108.25 port 39756 ssh2 Jun 3 11:32:16 server2 sshd[28516]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.100.108.25 user=root ... I have blocked that IP address using this command: sudo iptables -A INPUT -s 202.100.108.25 -j DROP However, I have no clue about the UDP multicasting, what is doing this? who is doing it? and how I can stop it? Anyone know?

  Read the article

• How to tell credentials used for a Network Mapping?

  - by shanecourtrille

  I have a networking mapping that doesn't appear to work. When I connect to the mapping I get access denied when I try to create a folder. When I created the mapping I told it to login as another account. I have verified that account has the proper rights on the server side of things. How can I verify that my local machine is connecting with the right credentials?

  Read the article

• Encrypt LAN and wifi traffic on small private network

  - by Grimlockz

  I need some advice about encrypt all traffic on a small private network running wi-fi and LAN traffic on 192.168.0.x network. The network would comprise of client laptops connecting to the wi-fi router (192.168.0.254) via ethernet connection or wireless. The main purpose of the server is for the client laptops to talk to two servers on different IP's (192.168.0.200 and 192.168.0.201) on ports 80 and 433. My main concern is having packet sniffers and what not getting access to the data. The only ways I see at the moment is to have VPN running on the network or use IPSec policy's to do this. Any other ways guys?

  Read the article

• Disable the user of Internet explorer through policies when called from HTML help

  - by Stephane

  Hello, I have a locked down environment where users are prohibited from doing, well, basically anything but run the specific programs we specify. We just switched a program from using the venerable "WinHELP" help format to HTML help (CHM) but that seem to have an unwanted and rather dangerous side effect: when a user click on a hyperlink inside the HTML help, a new internet explorer window is opened and the user is free to browse and do terrible things to my server (well, not that much, but still...) I have checked the session in this case and the IE window is actually hosted within the help engine: there is no iexplore.exe process running in the user session (and it cannot: it's explicitly prohibited). We have disable all help right now until we find a solution. I'm working with the help team to have all external URLs removed from the help file but that is going to be a long and error-prone task. Meanwhile, I've checked all the group policies option but I have to say that I was unable to find anything that would prevent a standalone IE window hosted in a random process from running. I don't want to disable WinHTTP or the IE rendering engine or anything of the sort. But I need to prevent all users members of a specific AD user group from ever having an IE window displayed to them. The servers are running Windows 2003 and Citrix metaframe 4.5. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Where are the ssh logs kept on the iphone?

  - by officespace

  I have a jailbroken iphone with openssh. Where are the ssh logs kept on the iphone?

  Read the article

• Bad ways to secure wireless network.

  - by Moshe

  I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on this, as I recently saw a Verizon DSL network set up where the WEP key was the last 8 characters of the router's MAC address. (It's bad enough that hey were using WEP in the first place...)

  Read the article

• How to protect an OS X Server from an unauthorized physical connection?

  - by GJ

  Hi I have an OS X 10.6 server, which I administer via SSH and VNC (via SSH tunnel). I can't leave it at the login window since then VNC connections are refused. Therefore I currently leave it logged with my user account. Since it doesn't have a monitor attached, it doesn't go into screen saver mode, which means it doesn't require a password to retake control. This means it is very easy for anyone connecting a keyboard/mouse and monitor to take control of the system. The screen saver password protection, which I can't get to activate, unlike the system's login window, is perfectly compatible with VNC connections. How could I prevent such direct access to the server without connecting a monitor and without blocking my ability to connect with VNC? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Do proxies really provide anonymity?

  - by Somebody still uses you MS-DOS

  Do web proxies really provide anonymity? I mean, without someone asking for logs in a web proxy server for who/when connected, is it impossible to know who was behind that IP address? I'm asking this because I heard somewhere that some technologies (like "flash") bypass personal IP information for requests or something like that. (I'm a noob in server configuration and concepts like DNS and proxies. Thanks!)

  Read the article

• LDAP for privilege control?

  - by neoice

  I've been wondering for a while if LDAP can be used to control user privileges. For example, if I have UNIX and web logins, is there an easy way to grant a user access to just or just UNIX (or even both?) My current attempt at solving this very problem was to create 'login' and 'nologin' groups, but this doesn't seem fine-grained enough to meet the ideas I have in my head. I'm also still in the situation where all UNIX users are web users, which isn't a problem so much as an indicator of the limitations. Does anyone have any input on this? Has this problem already been solved?

  Read the article

• Exchange 2003 default permissions for ANONYMOUS LOGON and Everyone

  - by Make it useful Keep it simple

  ANONYMOUS LOGON and Everyone have the following top level permissions in our Exchange 2003 Server: Read Execute Read permissions List contents Read properties List objects Create public folder Create named properties in the information store Are these the "default" settings? In particular, are the "Read" and "Execute" permissions a problem? We have a simple small business setup, Outlook clients connect to the server on the local network, OWA is used from outside the network for browser and smartphone access. Thanks

  Read the article

• A non interactive alternative to makecert.

  - by mark

  Dear ladies and sirs. I have a need to create a self signed certificate non interactively. Unfortunately, the only tool that I know of (makecert) is interactive - it uses GUI to ask for a password. My OS is Windows (from XP to 2008). The only thing close that I managed to find is http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/125982/How-to-run-Makecert-without-password-window.aspx, however, it is still not good. Any ideas?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >