Search Results

Search found 12720 results on 509 pages for 'moss2007 security'.

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

Page 133/509 | < Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >

  • Good free guide for mod_security?

    - by Josh
    I have looked at the official sites documentation, and it is a little tough to find starting points. Is there a free comprehensive guide that is easy to understand for someone that has never dealt with mod_security?

    Read the article

  • How can I prevent Virtualmin from storing passwords in cleartext?

    - by Josh
    I am really surprised at this behavior. In Virtualmin, I can see the password for any SSH user by clicking the "(Show..)" link next to the "Password ( ) Leave unchanged" option in a variety of locations. I have found that the passwords for all users including users with SSH access are stored in cleartext files in /etc/webmin/... This seems like an unnecessary risk! How can I prevent Virtualmin from storing passwords in this manner?

    Read the article

  • Basic IPTables setup for OpenVPN/HTTP/HTTPS server

    - by Afronautica
    I'm trying to get a basic IPTables setup on my server which will allow HTTP/SSH access, as well as enable the use of the server as an OpenVPN tunnel. The following is my current rule setup - the problem is OpenVPN queries (port 1194) seemed to be getting dropped as a result of this ruleset. Pinging a website while logged into the VPN results in teh response: Request timeout for icmp_seq 1 92 bytes from 10.8.0.1: Destination Port Unreachable When I clear the IPTable rules pinging from the VPN works fine. Any ideas? iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i ! lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -j REJECT

    Read the article

  • User permission settings on DNS with windows 2003 server R2 standard edition

    - by Ghost Answer
    I have windows server 2003 r2 standard edition and some XP OS clients systems. I have created the DNS and profiles for all user. Now I want to authorized some users to installation of softwares, remove softwares and other such kind of things. How to I make such kind of policies for all different users on DNS. Please help me. May be this question can be same for another but I didn't get the solutions.

    Read the article

  • md5sum or sha1sum of legitmate microsoft system files

    - by martyvis
    Is there a database or repository of the legitimate checksums for Microsoft system files? We think we have a 0day on DNS for Windows 2003 SP2 using IRC for command and control. (Latest McAfee does not see an issue). I want to compare our customer's dns.exe and associated DLLs with the real ones. (I will grab a fresh SP2 and hotfixed system to do this, but wonder how to do this in future without needed to do this.)

    Read the article

  • Our company claims that the DLP system can even monitor the contents of HTTPS traffic, how is this possible?

    - by Ryan
    There is software installed on all client machines for DLP (Data Loss Prevention) and HIPAA compliance. Supposedly it can read HTTPS data clearly. I always thought that between the browser and the server, this was encrypted entirely. How can software sneak in and grab this data from the browser prior to it is encrypted or after it is decrypted? I am just curious as to how this could be possible. I would think that a browser wouldn't be considered very secure if this was possible.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding users to corrupt and use a script

    - by EverythingRightPlace
    Is it possible to deny the right to copy files? I have a script which should be executable by others. They are also allowed to read the file (though it would not be a problem to forbid reading). But I don't want the script to be changed and executed. It's not a problem to set those permissions, but one could easily copy, change and run the script. Can this even be avoided? /edit The OS is Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation release 6.2 (Santiago).

    Read the article

  • Client-side certificates

    - by walshms
    My company purchased a wildcard certificate from a vendor. This certificate was successfully configured with Apache 2.2 to secure a subdomain. Everything on the SSL side works. Now I'm required to generate x509 client-side certificates to issue for this subdomain. I'm following along this page: (http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Apache/apache-SSL.html), starting with "Creating Client Certificates for Authentication". I've generated the p12 files and successfully imported them into Firefox. When I browse to the site now, I get an error in FireFox that says "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." I think my problem is coming from not signing the client-side correctly. When I sign the client-side certificate, I'm using the PEM file (RapidSSL_CA_bundle.pem) from RapidSSL (who we bought the certificate from) for the -CA argument. For the -CAkey argument, I'm using the private key of the server. Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • tftpd starts randomly

    - by Mutant
    A few days ago my Little Snitch filter starts popping up tftpd. I'd never seen this before, so I immediately start freaking out thinking my Mac has been compromised. I can't find anything unusual on the system. The process usually dies before I can trace it (little snitch never allowed the connection just left the popup up). I finally caught it once, and found this: [10:32]: sudo lsof -nlP | fgrep tftp Password: tftpd 1924 18446744 cwd DIR 1,3 1326 2 / tftpd 1924 18446744 txt REG 1,3 29856 163979456 /usr/libexec/tftpd tftpd 1924 18446744 txt REG 1,3 600576 163686622 /usr/lib/dyld tftpd 1924 18446744 txt REG 1,3 303300608 189014898 /private/var/db/dyld/dyld_shared_cache_x86_64 tftpd 1924 18446744 0u IPv4 0x34a76100fcbb06e3 0t0 UDP *:55818 tftpd 1924 18446744 2u IPv4 0x34a76100f1113c53 0t0 UDP *:69 [10:32]: ps ax | fgrep 1924 1924 ?? S 0:00.00 /usr/libexec/tftpd -i /private/tftpboot 1949 s000 S+ 0:00.00 fgrep 1924 For the life of me I can't figure out what is starting this. Nothing in cron, launchdaemons, etc. Google searches haven't yielded much either. The connection IP is different each time. So my question is: Has anyone seen anything like this before?

    Read the article

  • Firewall - Preventing Content Theft & Rogue Crawlers

    - by drodecker
    Our websites are being crawled by content thieves on a regular basis. We obviously want to let through the nice bots and legitimate user activity, but block questionable activity. We have tried IP blocking at our firewall, but this becomes to manage the block lists. Also, we have used IIS-handlers, however that complicates our web applications. Is anyone familiar with network appliances, firewalls or application services (say for IIS) that can reduce or eliminate the content scrapers?

    Read the article

  • Computer Invisible On Domain

    - by Giawa
    Good afternoon, I'm sorry that this isn't a programming question specifically, but stackoverflow has been great at answering questions in the past, so I thought I'd give it a shot. One of our Linux users attempted to install Cygwin on our Windows Server 2008 Domain Controller. Now it is no longer possible to browse the domain and see all of the computers. For example, \\my_domain_name will just bring up a username/password dialog box (that will not accept any username or password, even the domain administrator) and no computers will ever be listed. However, I can still connect to computers based on their name or IP address. So \\eridanus or \\192.168.1.85 still work to connect to the shared directories of computers on our network. Does anyone know where I can find these settings? and how I can fix this problem? Thanks, Giawa

    Read the article

  • My gmail password hacked in Firefox?

    - by ellockie
    While writing a message using Firefox suddenly my gmail login details, including password, were pasted into the body of my message at the current cursor position and in the browser's find field (whole password and a bit of email address in the latter). I don't store my passwords in the browser nor in any of it's addons, although I keep it in one of Chrome's extensions. I don't use whole email address to login, only the user name, so it's very strange and worrying. I must admit I clicked some suspicious link the same day (by checking the root of the domain first), but I quickly closed that page and after that I haven't used that password. Both Avira and Spybot didn't detect anything. What was it and what can I do to make sure my browser is safe?

    Read the article

  • Adjust iptables

    - by madunix
    cat /etc/sysconfig/iptables: # Firewall configuration written by system-config-securitylevel # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :RH-Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0] -A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A FORWARD -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p 51 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp --dport 5353 -d X.0.0.Y -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 631 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.Z.W --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -s M.M.M.M --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT I have the above following IPtables on my linux web server(Apache/MySQL), I want to have the following: Block any traffic from multiple IP's to my web server IP1:1.2.3.4.5, IP2:6.7.8.9 ..etc Limiting one host to 20 connections to 80 port, which should not affect non-malicious user, but would render slowloris unusable from one host. Limit MYSQL port 3306 access on my server only to the following IP range A.B.C.D/255.255.255.240 Block any ICMP traffic.

    Read the article

  • Taking user out of MACHINENAME\Users group does not disallow them from authenticating with IIS site

    - by jayrdub
    I have a site that has anonymous access disabled and uses only IIS basic authentication. The site's home directory only has the MACHINENAME\Users group with permissions. I have one user that I don't want to be able to log-in to this site, so I thought all I would need to do is take that user out of the Users group, but doing so still allows him to authenticate. I know it is the Users group that is allowing authentication because if I remove that group's permissions on the directory, he is not allowed to log in. Is there something special about the Users group that makes it so you are actually always a part of it? Is the only solution to revoke the Users group's permissions on the site's home directory and grant a new group access that contains only the allowed users?

    Read the article

  • How to secure Apache for shared hosting environment? (chrooting, avoid symlinking...)

    - by Alessio Periloso
    I'm having problems dealing with Apache configuration: the problem is that I want to limit each user to his own docroot (so, a chroot() would be what I'm looking for), but: Mod_chroot works only globally and not for each virtualhost: i have the users in a path like the following one /home/vhosts/xxxxx/domains/domain.tld/public_html (xxxxx is the user), and can't solve the problem chrooting /home/vhosts, because the users would still be allowed to see each other. Using apache-mod-itk would slow down the websites too much, and I'm not sure if it would solve anything Without using any of the previous two, I think the only thing left is avoiding symlinking, not allowing the users to link to something that doesn't belong to them. So, I think I'm going to follow the third point but... how to efficiently avoid symlinking while still keeping mod_rewrite working?! The php has already been chrooted with php-fpm, so my only concern is about Apache itself.

    Read the article

  • How intrusive is using VPN?

    - by Slade
    My company lets us work from home sometimes using VPN (during weather emergencies and stuff). When logging in a big window comes up that says the network is private and for employees only and that there's no right to privacy while using VPN. It makes sense that they don't want people poking around their network but I wonder if the company can use the connection to look around my computer while I'm connected. I'm not entirely computer-illiterate but I'm not a networks person at all so the technical documents I've found don't help me. Is that possible, and if so to what degree? UPDATE Thanks Mark. The funneling thing is what I was really asking about. Mostly I was worried that I would already have some IM conversation open or log into eBay forgetting that the VPN was open and that my company IT people would see it or that they would log my eBay password. Thanks again. ANOTHER UPDATE What if my son wants to play online poker or Warcraft etcetera while I have VPN on to work? Can my company think I'm the one playing if I am not typing often?

    Read the article

  • Securing NTP: which method to use?

    - by Harry
    Can someone good at NTP configuration please share which method is the best/easiest to implement a secure, tamper-proof version of NTP? Here are some difficulties... I don't have the luxury of having my own stratum 0 time source, so must rely on external time servers. Should I read up on the AutoKey method or should I try to go the MD5 route? Based on what I know about symmetric cryptography, it seems that the MD5 method relies on a pre-agreed set of keys (symmetric cryptography) between the client and the server, and, so, is prone to man-in-the-middle attack. AutoKey, on the other hand, does not appear to work behind a NAT or a masquerading host. Is this still true, by the way? (This reference link is dated 2004, so I'm not sure what is the state of art today.) 4.1 Are public AutoKey-talking time servers available? I browsed through the NTP book by David Mills. The book looks excellent in a way (coming from the NTP creator after all), but the information therein is also overwhelming. I just need to first configure a secure version of NTP and then may be later worry about its architectural and engineering underpinnings. Can someone please wade me through these drowning NTP waters? Don't necessarily need a working config from you, just info on which NTP mode/config to try and may be also a public time server that supports that mode/config. Many thanks, /HS

    Read the article

  • IIS and PHP restrict IO permissions

    - by ULTRA_POROV
    I have php installed trough a fastCGI module. Is there a way to restrict the module (php.exe) read / write permissions to only the directory (+ subdirs) of the IIS site that is calling it? I need this to prevent one IIS PHP site from having access to files outside its own directory. How to do this? Is there a setting in php.ini or in the IIS configuration? I believe such a feature could exist, because when a file on the server is requested the root path of the site is also known, all it would take is that IIS passes this path to the php module, and the php module should on its end allow only IO operations within this path. PS: I know it is possible to achieve this by using a different windows account for each website, this is not an option.

    Read the article

  • Member of local Administrators group cannot elevate

    - by fixme
    Hi We have just installed the first Windows 7 (professional) workstation in our domain. Its primary user has been added to the local (computer's) Administrators group (computername\Administrators). Still, whenever elevation is needed, his credentials are not accepted, and he is never allowed to act as an administrator. For example, he cannot write a file to C:\ (not that he needs to, but it illustrates the problem). Putting him in the domain's Administrators group doesn't help either (anyway we'd rather not do that). I suspect that he may be the victim of some policy that controls elevation, but can't seem to find it. Can anyone shed some light?

    Read the article

  • How to disabled password authentication for specific users in SSHD

    - by Nick
    I have read several posts regarding restricting ALL users to Key authentication ONLY, however I want to force only a single user (svn) onto Key auth only, the rest can be key or password. I read How to disable password authentication for every users except several, however it seems the "match user" part of sshd_config is part of openssh-5.1. I am running CentOS 5.6 and only have OpenSSH 4.3. I have the following repos available at the moment. $ yum repolist Loaded plugins: fastestmirror repo id repo name status base CentOS-5 - Base enabled: 3,535 epel Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 5 - x86_64 enabled: 6,510 extras CentOS-5 - Extras enabled: 299 ius IUS Community Packages for Enterprise Linux 5 - x86_64 enabled: 218 rpmforge RHEL 5 - RPMforge.net - dag enabled: 10,636 updates CentOS-5 - Updates enabled: 720 repolist: 21,918 I mainly use epel, rpmforge is used to the latest version (1.6) of subversion. Is there any way to achieve this with my current setup? I don't want to restrict the server to keys only because if I lose my key I lose my server ;-)

    Read the article

  • What is the right iptables rule to allow apt-get to download programs?

    - by anthony01
    When I type something like sudo apt-get install firefox, everything work until it asks me: After this operation, 77 MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y Then error messages are displayed: Failed to fetch: <URL> My iptables rules are as follows: -P INPUT DROP -P OUTPUT DROP -P FORWARD DROP -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT What should I add to allow apt-get to download updates? Thanks

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >