Search Results

Search found 15415 results on 617 pages for 'security groups'.

Page 134/617 | < Previous Page | 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141  | Next Page >

  • Can a malicious hacker share Linux distributions which trust bad root certificates?

    - by iamrohitbanga
    Suppose a hacker launches a new Linux distro with firefox provided with it. Now a browser contains the certificates of the root certification authorities of PKI. Because firefox is a free browser anyone can package it with fake root certificates. Thus a fake root certificate would contain a the certification authority that is not actually certified. Can this be used to authenticate some websites. How? Many existing linux distros are mirrored by people. They can easily package software containing certificates that can lead to such attacks. Is the above possible? Has such an attack taken place before?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with my Watcher (incron-like) daemon?

    - by eric01
    I have installed Watcher this way: both watcher.py and watcher.ini are located in /etc I also installed pyinotify and it does work when I use python -m pyinotify -v /var/www However, I want to use the daemon and when I start watcher.py, I get weird lines on my watcher.log (see below). I also included my watcher.ini file. Note: I have the latest version of Python. The watcher.py can be found here What is wrong with what I did? Also, do I really need pyinotify? Thanks a lot for your help watcher.ini: [DEFAULT] logfile=/var/log/watcher.log pidfile=/var/run/watcher.pid [job1] watch=/var/www events=create,delete,modify recursive=true command=mkdir /home/mockfolder ## just using this as test watcher.log: 2012-09-22 04:28:23.822029 Daemon started 2012-09-22 04:28:23.822596 job1: /var/www Traceback (most recent call last): File "/etc/watcher.py", line 359, in <module> daemon.start() File "/etc/watcher.py", line 124, in start self.run() File "/etc/watcher.py", line 256, in run autoadd = self.config.getboolean(section,'autoadd') File "/usr/lib/python2.7/ConfigParser.py", line 368, in getboolean v = self.get(section, option) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/ConfigParser.py", line 618, in get raise NoOptionError(option, section) ConfigParser.NoOptionError: No option 'autoadd' in section: 'job1'

    Read the article

  • Using the right folder for the right job. Article link, please?

    - by Droogans
    There are specific folders designed for specific tasks. /var/www holds your web sites, /usr/bin contains files to run your applications...yet I still find myself putting nearly all of my work in ~. Is it possible to overuse my home directory? Will it come back to haunt me? Anyone have a good link to an article of best practices for organizing your files so that they are placed in their "correct" place? Is there even such a thing in Linux? I am referring specifically to user-generated content. I do not compile applications from source, I use apt-get for those tasks. This article has a great introduction to what I'm looking for. Table 3-2, "Subdirectories of the root directory" is the sort of thing I'm looking for, but with more details/examples.

    Read the article

  • How do I securely execute commands as root via a web control panel?

    - by Chris J
    I would like to build a very simple PHP based web based control panel to add and remove users to/from and add and remove sections to/from nginx config files on my linode vps (Ubuntu 8.04 LTS). What is the most secure way of executing commands as root based on input from a web based control panel? I am loathe to run PHP as root (even if behind an IP tables firewall) for the obvious reasons. Suggestions welcome. It must be possible as several commercial (and bloated, for my needs) control panels offer similar functionality. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does ModSecurity 2.7.1 work with ASP.NET MVC 3?

    - by autonomatt
    I'm trying to get ModSecurity 2.7.1 to work with an ASP.NET MVC 3 website. The installation ran without errors and looking at the event log, ModSecurity is starting up successfully. I am using the modsecurity.conf-recommended file to set the basic rules. The problem I'm having is that whenever I am POSTing some form data, it doesn't get through to the controller action (or model binder). I have SecRuleEngine set to DetectionOnly. I have SecRequestBodyAccess set to On. With these settings, the body of the POST never reaches the controller action. If I set SecRequestBodyAccess to Off it works, so it's definitely something to do with how ModSecurity forwards the body data. The ModSecurity debug shows the following (looks to me as if all passed through): Second phase starting (dcfg 94b750). Input filter: Reading request body. Adding request argument (BODY): name "[0].IsSelected", value "on" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[0].Quantity", value "1" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[0].VariantSku", value "047861" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[1].Quantity", value "0" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[1].VariantSku", value "047862" Input filter: Completed receiving request body (length 115). Starting phase REQUEST_BODY. Recipe: Invoking rule 94c620; [file "*********************"] [line "54"] [id "200001"]. Rule 94c620: SecRule "REQBODY_ERROR" "!@eq 0" "phase:2,auditlog,id:200001,t:none,log,deny,status:400,msg:'Failed to parse request body.',logdata:%{reqbody_error_msg},severity:2" Transformation completed in 0 usec. Executing operator "!eq" with param "0" against REQBODY_ERROR. Operator completed in 0 usec. Rule returned 0. Recipe: Invoking rule 5549c38; [file "*********************"] [line "75"] [id "200002"]. Rule 5549c38: SecRule "MULTIPART_STRICT_ERROR" "!@eq 0" "phase:2,auditlog,id:200002,t:none,log,deny,status:44,msg:'Multipart request body failed strict validation: PE %{REQBODY_PROCESSOR_ERROR}, BQ %{MULTIPART_BOUNDARY_QUOTED}, BW %{MULTIPART_BOUNDARY_WHITESPACE}, DB %{MULTIPART_DATA_BEFORE}, DA %{MULTIPART_DATA_AFTER}, HF %{MULTIPART_HEADER_FOLDING}, LF %{MULTIPART_LF_LINE}, SM %{MULTIPART_MISSING_SEMICOLON}, IQ %{MULTIPART_INVALID_QUOTING}, IP %{MULTIPART_INVALID_PART}, IH %{MULTIPART_INVALID_HEADER_FOLDING}, FL %{MULTIPART_FILE_LIMIT_EXCEEDED}'" Transformation completed in 0 usec. Executing operator "!eq" with param "0" against MULTIPART_STRICT_ERROR. Operator completed in 0 usec. Rule returned 0. Recipe: Invoking rule 554bd70; [file "********************"] [line "80"] [id "200003"]. Rule 554bd70: SecRule "MULTIPART_UNMATCHED_BOUNDARY" "!@eq 0" "phase:2,auditlog,id:200003,t:none,log,deny,status:44,msg:'Multipart parser detected a possible unmatched boundary.'" Transformation completed in 0 usec. Executing operator "!eq" with param "0" against MULTIPART_UNMATCHED_BOUNDARY. Operator completed in 0 usec. Rule returned 0. Recipe: Invoking rule 554cbe0; [file "*********************************"] [line "94"] [id "200004"]. Rule 554cbe0: SecRule "TX:/^MSC_/" "!@streq 0" "phase:2,log,auditlog,id:200004,t:none,deny,msg:'ModSecurity internal error flagged: %{MATCHED_VAR_NAME}'" Rule returned 0. Hook insert_filter: Adding input forwarding filter (r 5541fc0). Hook insert_filter: Adding output filter (r 5541fc0). Initialising logging. Starting phase LOGGING. Recording persistent data took 0 microseconds. Audit log: Ignoring a non-relevant request. I can't see anything unusual in Fiddler. I'm using a ViewModel in the parameters of my action. No data is bound if SecRequestBodyAccess is set to On. I'm even logging all the Request.Form.Keys and values via log4net, but not getting any values there either. I'm starting to wonder if ModSecurity actually works with ASP.NET MVC or if there is some conflict with the ModSecurity http Module and the model binder kicking in. Does anyone have any suggestions or can anyone confirm they have ModSecurity working with an ASP.NET MVC website?

    Read the article

  • Network tools not working with a 3G connection

    - by gAMBOOKa
    Some of my network tools stopped working after I switched to a 3G connection from a DSL one. Cain and Abel's sniffer, Metasploit, even the NMAP scanner. I'm using Windows 7. The 3G device in question is the Huawei E180. Here's the error I get when running NMAP WARNING: Using raw sockets because ppp2 is not an ethernet device. This probably won't work on Windows. pcap_open_live(ppp2, 100, 0, 2) FAILED. Reported error: Error opening adapter: The system cannot find the device specified. (20). Will wait 5 seconds then retry. pcap_open_live(ppp2, 100, 0, 2) FAILED. Reported error: Error opening adapter: The system cannot find the device specified. (20). Will wait 25 seconds then retry. Call to pcap_open_live(ppp2, 100, 0, 2) failed three times. Reported error: Error opening adapter: The system cannot find the device specified. (20) Metasploit's refused connection to my websites too.

    Read the article

  • Open ports in Windows 7, firewall, public network, port 445

    - by chris
    I selected "public network" in Windows 7. Windows is listening on TCP port 445: TCP 0.0.0.0:445 WIN7TEST:0 ABHÖREN The corresponding incoming firewall rule isn't activated (4th column): When I choose "workplace network" the SMB incoming port 445 rule is still disabled in the advanced windows firewall configuration. I thought "public network" / "workplace network" and so on is influencing the windows firewall rules!? Where's the difference between workplace and public network then? http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=winfire2nxku0.png

    Read the article

  • Blocking IP Range in .htaccess Problem

    - by Pedro
    Hi, I'm trying to block the access of one of my webapps using IP Filter in the .htaccess, the problem is that after updating the file with: order allow,deny deny from 58.14.0.0/15 allow from all I get the folowing error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. What is wrong? Regards, Pedro

    Read the article

  • How to protect an OS X Server from an anautorized 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

  • Can't connect using Jail SFTP account

    - by Fazal
    I've been following this tutorial "Limiting Access with SFTP Jails on Debian and Ubuntu" and whilst I've had no errors setting it up, I've had issues on Ubuntu 10.04LTS logging in as a user on a virtualhost. I've changed my SSH port to 22022, and enter all the credentials when attempting to login. I ran these commands to add a user to the virtualhost: # useradd -d /srv/www/[domain] [username] # passwd [username] # usermod -G filetransfer [username] # chown [username]:[username] /srv/www/[domain]/public_html I should add that this is the only time I've setup the user they have no other /home directories or such. The directory that does exist is at /srv/www/example.com/public_html When I try using a desktop package such as cyberduck to login to the site, I keep getting a "Login failed with this username or password". I am completely lost as what to do next... The reason why I'm trying this method is because I want my clients to use SFTP and not FTP to upload files to their websites. Any help or direction is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Network vulnerability and port scanning services

    - by DigitalRoss
    I'm setting up a periodic port scan and vulnerability scan for a medium-sized network implementing a customer-facing web application. The hosts run CentOS 5.4. I've used tools like Nmap and OpenVAS, but our firewall rules have special cases for connections originating from our own facilities and servers, so really the scan should be done from the outside. Rather than set up a VPS or EC2 server and configuring it with various tools, it seems like this could just be contracted out to a port and vulnerability scanning service. If they do it professionally they may be more up to date than something I set up and let run for a year... Any recommendations or experience doing this?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141  | Next Page >