Search Results

Search found 497 results on 20 pages for 'xss prevention'.

Page 13/20 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • How do HttpOnly cookies work with AJAX requests?

    - by Shawn Simon
    JavaScript needs access to cookies if AJAX is used on a site with access restrictions based on cookies. Will HttpOnly cookies work on an AJAX site? Edit: Microsoft created a way to prevent XSS attacks by disallowing JavaScript access to cookies if HttpOnly is specified. FireFox later adopted this. So my question is: If you are using AJAX on a site, like StackOverflow, are Http-Only cookies an option? Edit 2: Question 2. If the purpose of HttpOnly is to prevent JavaScript access to cookies, and you can still retrieve the cookies via JavaScript through the XmlHttpRequest Object, what is the point of HttpOnly? Edit 3: Here is a quote from Wikipedia: When the browser receives such a cookie, it is supposed to use it as usual in the following HTTP exchanges, but not to make it visible to client-side scripts.[32] The HttpOnly flag is not part of any standard, and is not implemented in all browsers. Note that there is currently no prevention of reading or writing the session cookie via a XMLHTTPRequest. [33]. I understand that document.cookie is blocked when you use HttpOnly. But it seems that you can still read cookie values in the XMLHttpRequest object, allowing for XSS. How does HttpOnly make you any safer than? By making cookies essentially read only? In your example, I cannot write to your document.cookie, but I can still steal your cookie and post it to my domain using the XMLHttpRequest object. <script type="text/javascript"> var req = null; try { req = new XMLHttpRequest(); } catch(e) {} if (!req) try { req = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP"); } catch(e) {} if (!req) try { req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); } catch(e) {} req.open('GET', 'http://beta.stackoverflow.com/', false); req.send(null); alert(req.getAllResponseHeaders()); </script> Edit 4: Sorry, I meant that you could send the XMLHttpRequest to the StackOverflow domain, and then save the result of getAllResponseHeaders() to a string, regex out the cookie, and then post that to an external domain. It appears that Wikipedia and ha.ckers concur with me on this one, but I would love be re-educated... Final Edit: Ahh, apparently both sites are wrong, this is actually a bug in FireFox. IE6 & 7 are actually the only browsers that currently fully support HttpOnly. To reiterate everything I've learned: HttpOnly restricts all access to document.cookie in IE7 & and FireFox (not sure about other browsers) HttpOnly removes cookie information from the response headers in XMLHttpObject.getAllResponseHeaders() in IE7. XMLHttpObjects may only be submitted to the domain they originated from, so there is no cross-domain posting of the cookies. edit: This information is likely no longer up to date.

    Read the article

  • URI encode and HTML encode

    - by Anil Namde
    If I have the xml/html data to post we need to encode the data to avoid the XSS validation. So should we use HTMLencode or URI encoding for this. If URI encoding is used will it cause issues as form POST automatically URI encode all the data before sending.

    Read the article

  • Disable scrolling in webview?

    - by jakesankey
    Hi there, Until now I have been an iPhone developer only and now I have decided to give Android a whirl. Something I haven't been able to figure out on Android is how to programmatically prevent scrolling in a webview?? Something similar to iPhones prevention of the onTouchMove event would be great! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Why is htmlspecialchars adding slashes to my webpage?

    - by Cortopasta
    I have my input placed into mySQL through a PDO prepared statement, and have it placed in my website with PHP using htmlspecialchars() to protect against XSS. Only problem is now I get slashes, before any quotes, that are visible on the webpage to the user it only happens when I upload it to the server. Never happens on my localhost. Why is this happening?

    Read the article

  • URI encode and HTML ecnode

    - by Anil Namde
    If i have the xml/html data to post we need to encode the data to avoid the XSS validation. So should we use HTMLencode or URI encoding for this. If URI encoding is used will it cause issues as form POST automatically URI encode all the data before sending.

    Read the article

  • How to deal with Denial of Service attack and Session fixation and Cross Site request forgery in Rai

    - by Gautam
    Hi, I have just started learning Ruby on Rails. I happened to look for prevention of DNS attacks in Rails and ended up reading about DNS, Session fixation and Cross Site request forgery in Rails? How do you prevent all the above three attacks?? Could you suggest me a good tutorial on how to deal with attack in RoR? Looking forward for your help Thanks in advance Regards, Gautam

    Read the article

  • xslt test if a variable value is contained in a node set

    - by Aamir
    I have the following two files: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <!-- D E F A U L T H O S P I T A L P O L I C Y --> <xas DefaultPolicy="open" DefaultSubjectsFile="subjects.xss"> <rule id="R1" access="deny" object="record" subject="roles/*[name()!='Staff']"/> <rule id="R2" access="deny" object="diagnosis" subject="roles//Nurse"/> <rule id="R3" access="grant" object="record[@id=$user]" subject="roles/member[@id=$user]"/> </xas> and the other xml file called subjects.xss is: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <subjects> <users> <member id="dupont" password="4A-4E-E9-17-5D-CE-2C-DD-43-43-1D-F1-3F-5D-94-71"> <name>Pierre Dupont</name> </member> <member id="durand" password="3A-B6-1B-E8-C0-1F-CD-34-DF-C4-5E-BA-02-3C-04-61"> <name>Jacqueline Durand</name> </member> </users> <roles> <Staff> <Doctor> <member idref="dupont"/> </Doctor> <Nurse> <member idref="durand"/> </Nurse> </Staff> </roles> </subjects> I am writing an xsl sheet which will read the subject value for each rule in policy.xas and if the currently logged in user (accessible as variable "user" in the stylesheet) is contained in that subject value (say roles//Nurse), then do something. I am not being able to test whether the currently logged in user ($user which is equal to say "durand") is contained in roles//Nurse in the subjects file (which is a different xml file). Hope that clarifies my question. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Google OAuthGetRequestToken returns "signature_invalid"

    - by M Schenkel
    Trying for hours to get a request token using Google OAuthGetRequestToken but it always returns "signature_invalid". For a test I use the oAuth Playground to successfully request the token. Here are the results: Signature base string GET&https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Faccounts%2FOAuthGetRequestToken&oauth_callback%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fgooglecodesamples.com%252Foauth_playground%252Findex.php%26oauth_consumer_key%3Dwww.embeddedanalytics.com%26oauth_nonce%3D56aa884162ed21815a0406725c79cf79%26oauth_signature_method%3DRSA-SHA1%26oauth_timestamp%3D1321417095%26oauth_version%3D1.0%26scope%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fanalytics%252Ffeeds%252F Request/Response GET /accounts/OAuthGetRequestToken?scope=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fanalytics%2Ffeeds%2F HTTP/1.1 Host: www.google.com Accept: */* Authorization: OAuth oauth_version="1.0", oauth_nonce="56aa884162ed21815a0406725c79cf79", oauth_timestamp="1321417095", oauth_consumer_key="www.embeddedanalytics.com", oauth_callback="http%3A%2F%2Fgooglecodesamples.com%2Foauth_playground%2Findex.php", oauth_signature_method="RSA-SHA1", oauth_signature="qRtorIaSFaQdOXW1u6eMQlY9LT2j7ThG5kgkcD6rDcW4MIvzluslFgYRNTuRvnaruraNpItjojtgsrK9deYRKoHBGOlU27SsWy6jECxKczcSECl3cVAcjk7dvbywFMDkgi1ZhTZ5Q%2BFoD60HoVQUYnGUbOO0jPXI48LfkiA5ZN4%3D" HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:18:15 GMT Expires: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:18:15 GMT Cache-Control: private, max-age=0 X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Content-Length: 118 Server: GSE oauth_token=4%2FmO86qZzixayI2NoUc-hewC--D53R&oauth_token_secret=r0PReF9D83w1d6uP0nyQQm9c&oauth_callback_confirmed=true I am using Fiddler to trace my calls. It returns the Signature base string: GET&https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Faccounts%2FOAuthGetRequestToken&oauth_callback%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fgooglecodesamples.com%252Foauth_playground%252Findex.php%26oauth_consumer_key%3Dwww.embeddedanalytics.com%26oauth_nonce%3Dl9Jydzjyzt2fJfM3ltY5yrxxYy2uh1U7%26oauth_signature_method%3DRSA-SHA1%26oauth_timestamp%3D1321417107%26oauth_version%3D1.0%26scope%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fanalytics%252Ffeeds%252F Aside from the oauth_timestamp and oauth_nonce (which should be different), the base string are pretty much identical. Anyone know what I am doing wrong? Update 11/20/2011 Thinking it might be something wrong with my RSA-SHA signing, I have since tried HMAC-SHA. It gives the same results. I thought it might be beneficial to include the Fiddler results (I added carriage returns to have it format better). GET https://www.google.com/accounts/OAuthGetRequestToken? scope=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fanalytics%2Ffeeds%2F HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Authorization: OAuth oauth_version="1.0", oauth_nonce="7C4C900EAACC9C7B62E399A91B81D8DC", oauth_timestamp="1321845418", oauth_consumer_key="www.embeddedanalytics.com", oauth_signature_method="HMAC-SHA1", oauth_signature="ows%2BbFTNSR8jVZo53rGBB8%2BfwFM%3D" Host: www.google.com Accept: */* Accept-Encoding: identity Response HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:16:57 GMT Expires: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:16:57 GMT Cache-Control: private, max-age=0 X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Content-Length: 358 Server: GSE signature_invalid base_string:GET&https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Faccounts%2FOAuthGetRequestToken &oauth_consumer_key%3Dwww.embeddedanalytics.com %26oauth_nonce%3D7C4C900EAACC9C7B62E399A91B81D8DC %26oauth_signature_method%3DHMAC-SHA1 %26oauth_timestamp%3D1321845418 %26oauth_version%3D1.0 %26scope%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fanalytics%252Ffeeds%252F

    Read the article

  • Recovering From An SQL Injection

    - by Bryan
    Let's not go so far as to say that I'm paranoid, but I've been spending hour after hour learning how to prevent SQL injections (and XSS for what it's worth). What I'm wondering is that a SQL injection doesn't seem like it would do permanent harm to my database if I've made daily backups. Doesn't importing yesterday's copy of my tables just restore them and then I can be on my merry way?

    Read the article

  • Empty "for" loop in Facebook ajax

    - by celticpride
    While surfing facebook and using the Firebug network debugger I noticed that facebook's AJAX responses all start with an empty for loop. Example: for(;;);{...} Does anyone know why this is done? I assume it's to prevent some sort of XSS attack but I don't totally understand. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Least intrusive antivirus software for development PC?

    - by poppavein
    What is the least intrusive and most effective antivirus software for a Windows PC that is used for software development (lots of small files and lots of disk I/O)? The software should support running from the command line so that virus scan be included into the build process. Edit: I understand that prevention techniques work better than any antivirus, but the employer demands that commercial AV software be used in the development environment (looking a replacement for horrible Symantec Antivirus).

    Read the article

  • Javascript reference external script file - security implications

    - by rkrauter
    Hi, If I have a reference to an external third party JavaScript file on my website, what are the security implications? Can the JavaScript file be used to steal cookies? One example of this is the Google Analytics JavaScript reference file. Could the third party technically steal cookies or any other sensitive information from my logged on users (XSS)? The whole cross domain scripting has me confused sometimes. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • session fixation

    - by markiv
    Hi All, I am new to web development, and trying to get a hold on security issues. I went through this article on http://guides.rubyonrails.org/security.html these are some of the steps the author has mentioned how an attacker fixes session. 1. The attacker creates a valid session id: He loads the login page of the web application where he wants to fix the session, and takes the session id in the cookie from the response (see number 1 and 2 in the image). 2. He possibly maintains the session. Expiring sessions, for example every 20 minutes, greatly reduces the time-frame for attack. Therefore he accesses the web application from time to time in order to keep the session alive. 3. Now the attacker will force the user’s browser into using this session id (see number 3 in the image). As you may not change a cookie of another domain (because of the same origin policy), the attacker has to run a JavaScript from the domain of the target web application. Injecting the JavaScript code into the application by XSS accomplishes this attack. Here is an example: <script>?document.cookie="_session_id=16d5b78abb28e3d6206b60f22a03c8d9";?</script>. Read more about XSS and injection later on. 4. The attacker lures the victim to the infected page with the JavaScript code. By viewing the page, the victim’s browser will change the session id to the trap session id. 5. As the new trap session is unused, the web application will require the user to authenticate. 6. From now on, the victim and the attacker will co-use the web application with the same session: The session became valid and the victim didn’t notice the attack. I dont understand couple of points. i) why is user made to login in step5, since session is sent through. ii) I saw possible solutions on wiki, like user properties check and others why cant we just reset the session for the user whoever is login in when they enter username and password in step5? Thanks in advance Markiv

    Read the article

  • Good resource for studying Database High Availability techniques

    - by Invincible
    Hello Can anybody suggest some good resource/book on Database high availability techniques? Moreover, High-availability of system software like Intrusion Prevention system or Web servers. I am considering high-availability is global term which covers clustring, cloud computing, replication, replica management, distributed synchronization for cluster. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Globally Handling Request Validation In ASP.NET MVC

    - by imran_ku07
       Introduction:           Cross Site Scripting(XSS) and Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks are one of dangerous attacks on web.  They are among the most famous security issues affecting web applications. OWASP regards XSS is the number one security issue on the Web. Both ASP.NET Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC paid very much attention to make applications build with ASP.NET as secure as possible. So by default they will throw an exception 'A potentially dangerous XXX value was detected from the client', when they see, < followed by an exclamation(like <!) or < followed by the letters a through z(like <s) or & followed by a pound sign(like &#123) as a part of querystring, posted form and cookie collection. This is good for lot of applications. But this is not always the case. Many applications need to allow users to enter html tags, for example applications which uses  Rich Text Editor. You can allow user to enter these tags by just setting validateRequest="false" in your Web.config application configuration file inside <pages> element if you are using Web Form. This will globally disable request validation. But in ASP.NET MVC request handling is different than ASP.NET Web Form. Therefore for disabling request validation globally in ASP.NET MVC you have to put ValidateInputAttribute in your every controller. This become pain full for you if you have hundred of controllers. Therefore in this article i will present a very simple way to handle request validation globally through web.config.   Description:           Before starting how to do this it is worth to see why validateRequest in Page directive and web.config not work in ASP.NET MVC. Actually request handling in ASP.NET Web Form and ASP.NET MVC is different. In Web Form mostly the HttpHandler is the page handler which checks the posted form, query string and cookie collection during the Page ProcessRequest method, while in MVC request validation occur when ActionInvoker calling the action. Just see the stack trace of both framework.   ASP.NET MVC Stack Trace:     System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateString(String s, String valueName, String collectionName) +8723114   System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateNameValueCollection(NameValueCollection nvc, String collectionName) +111   System.Web.HttpRequest.get_Form() +129   System.Web.HttpRequestWrapper.get_Form() +11   System.Web.Mvc.ValueProviderDictionary.PopulateDictionary() +145   System.Web.Mvc.ValueProviderDictionary..ctor(ControllerContext controllerContext) +74   System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.get_ValueProvider() +31   System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.GetParameterValue(ControllerContext controllerContext, ParameterDescriptor parameterDescriptor) +53   System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.GetParameterValues(ControllerContext controllerContext, ActionDescriptor actionDescriptor) +109   System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeAction(ControllerContext controllerContext, String actionName) +399   System.Web.Mvc.Controller.ExecuteCore() +126   System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.Execute(RequestContext requestContext) +27   ASP.NET Web Form Stack Trace:    System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateString(String s, String valueName, String collectionName) +3213202   System.Web.HttpRequest.ValidateNameValueCollection(NameValueCollection nvc, String collectionName) +108   System.Web.HttpRequest.get_QueryString() +119   System.Web.UI.Page.GetCollectionBasedOnMethod(Boolean dontReturnNull) +2022776   System.Web.UI.Page.DeterminePostBackMode() +60   System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +6953   System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +154   System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest() +86                        Since the first responder of request in ASP.NET MVC is the controller action therefore it will check the posted values during calling the action. That's why web.config's requestValidate not work in ASP.NET MVC.            So let's see how to handle this globally in ASP.NET MVC. First of all you need to add an appSettings in web.config. <appSettings>    <add key="validateRequest" value="true"/>  </appSettings>              I am using the same key used in disable request validation in Web Form. Next just create a new ControllerFactory by derving the class from DefaultControllerFactory.     public class MyAppControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory    {        protected override IController GetControllerInstance(Type controllerType)        {            var controller = base.GetControllerInstance(controllerType);            string validateRequest=System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["validateRequest"];            bool b;            if (validateRequest != null && bool.TryParse(validateRequest,out b))                ((ControllerBase)controller).ValidateRequest = bool.Parse(validateRequest);            return controller;        }    }                         Next just register your controller factory in global.asax.        protected void Application_Start()        {            //............................................................................................            ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new MyAppControllerFactory());        }              This will prevent the above exception to occur in the context of ASP.NET MVC. But if you are using the Default WebFormViewEngine then you need also to set validateRequest="false" in your web.config file inside <pages> element            Now when you run your application you see the effect of validateRequest appsetting. One thing also note that the ValidateInputAttribute placed inside action or controller will always override this setting.    Summary:          Request validation is great security feature in ASP.NET but some times there is a need to disable this entirely. So in this article i just showed you how to disable this globally in ASP.NET MVC. I also explained the difference between request validation in Web Form and ASP.NET MVC. Hopefully you will enjoy this.

    Read the article

  • RequestValidation Changes in ASP.NET 4.0

    - by Rick Strahl
    There’s been a change in the way the ValidateRequest attribute on WebForms works in ASP.NET 4.0. I noticed this today while updating a post on my WebLog all of which contain raw HTML and so all pretty much trigger request validation. I recently upgraded this app from ASP.NET 2.0 to 4.0 and it’s now failing to update posts. At first this was difficult to track down because of custom error handling in my app – the custom error handler traps the exception and logs it with only basic error information so the full detail of the error was initially hidden. After some more experimentation in development mode the error that occurs is the typical ASP.NET validate request error (‘A potentially dangerous Request.Form value was detetected…’) which looks like this in ASP.NET 4.0: At first when I got this I was real perplexed as I didn’t read the entire error message and because my page does have: <%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="NewEntry.aspx.cs" Inherits="Westwind.WebLog.NewEntry" MasterPageFile="~/App_Templates/Standard/AdminMaster.master" ValidateRequest="false" EnableEventValidation="false" EnableViewState="false" %> WTF? ValidateRequest would seem like it should be enough, but alas in ASP.NET 4.0 apparently that setting alone is no longer enough. Reading the fine print in the error explains that you need to explicitly set the requestValidationMode for the application back to V2.0 in web.config: <httpRuntime executionTimeout="300" requestValidationMode="2.0" /> Kudos for the ASP.NET team for putting up a nice error message that tells me how to fix this problem, but excuse me why the heck would you change this behavior to require an explicit override to an optional and by default disabled page level switch? You’ve just made a relatively simple fix to a solution a nasty morass of hard to discover configuration settings??? The original way this worked was perfectly discoverable via attributes in the page. Now you can set this setting in the page and get completely unexpected behavior and you are required to set what effectively amounts to a backwards compatibility flag in the configuration file. It turns out the real reason for the .config flag is that the request validation behavior has moved from WebForms pipeline down into the entire ASP.NET/IIS request pipeline and is now applied against all requests. Here’s what the breaking changes page from Microsoft says about it: The request validation feature in ASP.NET provides a certain level of default protection against cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. In previous versions of ASP.NET, request validation was enabled by default. However, it applied only to ASP.NET pages (.aspx files and their class files) and only when those pages were executing. In ASP.NET 4, by default, request validation is enabled for all requests, because it is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. As a result, request validation applies to requests for all ASP.NET resources, not just .aspx page requests. This includes requests such as Web service calls and custom HTTP handlers. Request validation is also active when custom HTTP modules are reading the contents of an HTTP request. As a result, request validation errors might now occur for requests that previously did not trigger errors. To revert to the behavior of the ASP.NET 2.0 request validation feature, add the following setting in the Web.config file: <httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0" /> However, we recommend that you analyze any request validation errors to determine whether existing handlers, modules, or other custom code accesses potentially unsafe HTTP inputs that could be XSS attack vectors. Ok, so ValidateRequest of the form still works as it always has but it’s actually the ASP.NET Event Pipeline, not WebForms that’s throwing the above exception as request validation is applied to every request that hits the pipeline. Creating the runtime override removes the HttpRuntime checking and restores the WebForms only behavior. That fixes my immediate problem but still leaves me wondering especially given the vague wording of the above explanation. One thing that’s missing in the description is above is one important detail: The request validation is applied only to application/x-www-form-urlencoded POST content not to all inbound POST data. When I first read this this freaked me out because it sounds like literally ANY request hitting the pipeline is affected. To make sure this is not really so I created a quick handler: public class Handler1 : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World <hr>" + context.Request.Form.ToString()); } public bool IsReusable { get { return false; } } } and called it with Fiddler by posting some XML to the handler using a default form-urlencoded POST content type: and sure enough – hitting the handler also causes the request validation error and 500 server response. Changing the content type to text/xml effectively fixes the problem however, bypassing the request validation filter so Web Services/AJAX handlers and custom modules/handlers that implement custom protocols aren’t affected as long as they work with special input content types. It also looks that multipart encoding does not trigger event validation of the runtime either so this request also works fine: POST http://rasnote/weblog/handler1.ashx HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=------7cf2a327f01ae User-Agent: West Wind Internet Protocols 5.53 Host: rasnote Content-Length: 40 Pragma: no-cache <xml>asdasd</xml>--------7cf2a327f01ae *That* probably should trigger event validation – since it is a potential HTML form submission, but it doesn’t. New Runtime Feature, Global Scope Only? Ok, so request validation is now a runtime feature but sadly it’s a feature that’s scoped to the ASP.NET Runtime – effective scope to the entire running application/app domain. You can still manually force validation using Request.ValidateInput() which gives you the option to do this in code, but that realistically will only work with the requestValidationMode set to V2.0 as well since the 4.0 mode auto-fires before code ever gets a chance to intercept the call. Given all that, the new setting in ASP.NET 4.0 seems to limit options and makes things more difficult and less flexible. Of course Microsoft gets to say ASP.NET is more secure by default because of it but what good is that if you have to turn off this flag the very first time you need to allow one single request that bypasses request validation??? This is really shortsighted design… <sigh>© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2010Posted in ASP.NET  

    Read the article

  • Secure Your Wireless Router: 8 Things You Can Do Right Now

    - by Chris Hoffman
    A security researcher recently discovered a backdoor in many D-Link routers, allowing anyone to access the router without knowing the username or password. This isn’t the first router security issue and won’t be the last. To protect yourself, you should ensure that your router is configured securely. This is about more than just enabling Wi-Fi encryption and not hosting an open Wi-Fi network. Disable Remote Access Routers offer a web interface, allowing you to configure them through a browser. The router runs a web server and makes this web page available when you’re on the router’s local network. However, most routers offer a “remote access” feature that allows you to access this web interface from anywhere in the world. Even if you set a username and password, if you have a D-Link router affected by this vulnerability, anyone would be able to log in without any credentials. If you have remote access disabled, you’d be safe from people remotely accessing your router and tampering with it. To do this, open your router’s web interface and look for the “Remote Access,” “Remote Administration,” or “Remote Management” feature. Ensure it’s disabled — it should be disabled by default on most routers, but it’s good to check. Update the Firmware Like our operating systems, web browsers, and every other piece of software we use, router software isn’t perfect. The router’s firmware — essentially the software running on the router — may have security flaws. Router manufacturers may release firmware updates that fix such security holes, although they quickly discontinue support for most routers and move on to the next models. Unfortunately, most routers don’t have an auto-update feature like Windows and our web browsers do — you have to check your router manufacturer’s website for a firmware update and install it manually via the router’s web interface. Check to be sure your router has the latest available firmware installed. Change Default Login Credentials Many routers have default login credentials that are fairly obvious, such as the password “admin”. If someone gained access to your router’s web interface through some sort of vulnerability or just by logging onto your Wi-Fi network, it would be easy to log in and tamper with the router’s settings. To avoid this, change the router’s password to a non-default password that an attacker couldn’t easily guess. Some routers even allow you to change the username you use to log into your router. Lock Down Wi-Fi Access If someone gains access to your Wi-Fi network, they could attempt to tamper with your router — or just do other bad things like snoop on your local file shares or use your connection to downloaded copyrighted content and get you in trouble. Running an open Wi-Fi network can be dangerous. To prevent this, ensure your router’s Wi-Fi is secure. This is pretty simple: Set it to use WPA2 encryption and use a reasonably secure passphrase. Don’t use the weaker WEP encryption or set an obvious passphrase like “password”. Disable UPnP A variety of UPnP flaws have been found in consumer routers. Tens of millions of consumer routers respond to UPnP requests from the Internet, allowing attackers on the Internet to remotely configure your router. Flash applets in your browser could use UPnP to open ports, making your computer more vulnerable. UPnP is fairly insecure for a variety of reasons. To avoid UPnP-based problems, disable UPnP on your router via its web interface. If you use software that needs ports forwarded — such as a BitTorrent client, game server, or communications program — you’ll have to forward ports on your router without relying on UPnP. Log Out of the Router’s Web Interface When You’re Done Configuring It Cross site scripting (XSS) flaws have been found in some routers. A router with such an XSS flaw could be controlled by a malicious web page, allowing the web page to configure settings while you’re logged in. If your router is using its default username and password, it would be easy for the malicious web page to gain access. Even if you changed your router’s password, it would be theoretically possible for a website to use your logged-in session to access your router and modify its settings. To prevent this, just log out of your router when you’re done configuring it — if you can’t do that, you may want to clear your browser cookies. This isn’t something to be too paranoid about, but logging out of your router when you’re done using it is a quick and easy thing to do. Change the Router’s Local IP Address If you’re really paranoid, you may be able to change your router’s local IP address. For example, if its default address is 192.168.0.1, you could change it to 192.168.0.150. If the router itself were vulnerable and some sort of malicious script in your web browser attempted to exploit a cross site scripting vulnerability, accessing known-vulnerable routers at their local IP address and tampering with them, the attack would fail. This step isn’t completely necessary, especially since it wouldn’t protect against local attackers — if someone were on your network or software was running on your PC, they’d be able to determine your router’s IP address and connect to it. Install Third-Party Firmwares If you’re really worried about security, you could also install a third-party firmware such as DD-WRT or OpenWRT. You won’t find obscure back doors added by the router’s manufacturer in these alternative firmwares. Consumer routers are shaping up to be a perfect storm of security problems — they’re not automatically updated with new security patches, they’re connected directly to the Internet, manufacturers quickly stop supporting them, and many consumer routers seem to be full of bad code that leads to UPnP exploits and easy-to-exploit backdoors. It’s smart to take some basic precautions. Image Credit: Nuscreen on Flickr     

    Read the article

  • Ironport X-Junk header.

    - by Kyle
    My school uses Ironport for filtering/monitoring web traffic. I have a bit of curiosity as to why it tacks on a x-junk: header onto everything. After going through a few curl tests, I've found no real connection between what is shown on the page and the x-junk: header. here's my curl request: any ideas? Anchorage:~ khotchkiss$ curl -I google.com HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.google.com/ Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 04:37:25 GMT Expires: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 04:37:25 GMT Cache-Control: public, max-age=2592000 Server: gws X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Content-Length: 219 Age: 108 Via: 1.1 MC-IRONPORT.UNIVERSITY.LIBERTY.EDU:80 (IronPort-WSA/6.3.3-015) Connection: keep-alive X-Junk: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Read the article

  • How to drop packets in a custom Intrusion Detection System

    - by tzoukos
    Hi there, I'm trying to build a custom Intrusion Detection and Prevention System (IDS/IPS). I found a great utility named ROPE which can scan the packet payload and drop the packet that doesn't follow the rules, set by a script. This serves my purpose completely, since what I want to do is check the payload for some specific text and then drop it or allow it ( the string feature in iptables wouldn't do me any good, because I want to check more than one string in tha payload, like usernames, id's, etc ). However, ROPE is really old and despite my many attempts I haven't managed to install it properly. Do you know any similar program that will help me drop packets in iptables depending on the payload? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Set up internal domain to use external SMTP in Exchange 2007

    - by Geoffrey
    I'm moving to Google Apps and have setup dual-delivery. Everything is fine, but for mail sent internally (from [email protected] to [email protected]), Exchange is not using the send connectors I have pointing to Google's servers. I believe my question is similar to this question: How to force internal email through an smtp connector in exchange 2007 Again, if a user is connected to the Exchange server and tries to send to [email protected] it works just fine, but I cannot seem to force *@mydomain.com to route correctly. This should be a fairly simple, but according to this: google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Apps/thread?tid=30b6ad03baa57289&hl=en (can't post two links due to spam prevention) It does not seem possible. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Are Motherboards for the Acer Aspire One AOA150 Netbook Compatible with the AOA110?

    - by Mindstormscreator
    I have an Acer Aspire One ZG5 AOA110-1588 netbook, and the motherboard doesn't have a port for a SATA 2.5 inch hard drive; it only supports this slow 8GB SSD type drive. Through research I've discovered that the AOA150 motherboards do have a SATA slot, and the bottom plate of these laptops have an appropriate protrusion for the drive to fit in (for example, compare this to this). The AOA110 and AOA150 models are very similar in appearance and specs. I've even seen tutorials that involve soldering a SATA connector onto the AOA110's motherboard, essentially creating an AOA150 motherboard (right?) So, could I just swap out the motherboard in my netbook with the MBS0506001? (I'd post another link to the actual board but can't because of the spam prevention...) I assume I would also need to purchase and replace the bottom cover with a larger one and possibly get a hard drive caddy as well...? Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >