Search Results

Search found 13940 results on 558 pages for 'pci security'.

Page 135/558 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

• Using SSLv3 - Enabling Strong Ciphers Server 2008

  - by Igor K

  I've disabled SSLv2 and SSLv3 is on. However I cannot connect to a remote server which fails with The client and server cannot communicate, because they do not possess a common algorithm Ran an SSL check (http://www.serversniff.net/sslcheck.php) on the remote server and ours, and noticed none of the ciphers they accept we have on our server. How can this be configured? (Windows Web Server 2008) Remote Server Accepted SSL ciphers: DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA AES256-SHA EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA DES-CBC3-SHA DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA AES128-SHA Our server by default accepts: DES-CBC3-SHA RC4-SHA RC4-MD5

  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

• Where are the Microsoft downloaded app compat updates stored?

  - by Ian Boyd

  Where are the Microsoft application compatibility update settings stored on a Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7 computer? Microsoft periodically release application compatibility updates (e.g. KB929427), where they list the shims that should be applied to a program in order to workaround known bugs in the software. Where are these app compat flags stored, and how can i see what shims are being applied? i have a feeling that a recent app compat update included a flag to force a particular piece of software, that we use, to require administrator. Because the task is scheduled to run nightly, and the running user does not have administrative privelages, the task is failing to start. The application is requiring to be elevated. It has the UAC shield overlay. The application has no RT_MANIFEST resource, and the compatibility option Run this program as administrator is disabled (per-user and all users). So all that's left is some secret global setting. i know user-specified compat flags are stored in: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \SOFTWARE \Microsoft \Windows NT \CurrentVersion \AppCompatFlags \Layers

  Read the article

• Possible DNS Injection and/or SSL hijack?

  - by Anthony

  So if I go to my site without indicating the protocol, I'm taken to: http://example.org/test.php But if I go directly to: https://example.org/test.php I get a 404 back. If I go to just: https://example.org I get a totally different site (a page about martial arts). I went to the site via https not very long ago (maybe a week?) and it was fine. This is a shared server, as I understand it, and I do not have shell access, so I'm limited to the site's CPanel to do any further investigations. But when I go to: example.org:2083 I'm taken to https://example.org:2083, which, if someone has taken over the SSL port, could mean they have taken over the 2083 part as well (at least in my paranoid mind). I'm made more nervous by the fact that the cpanel login page at the above address looks very new (better, really) compared to the last time I went to it over the weekend. It's possible that wires got crossed somewhere after a system update, but I don't want to put in my name username and password in case it's a phishing attempt. Is there any way to know for sure without shell access to know for sure if someone has taken over? If I look up the IP address for the host name, the IP address matches what I have on a phpinfo page I can get to over http. If I go to the IP address directly on port 2083, I get the same login mentioned above (new and and suspiciously nice). But the SSL cert shows as good when I go this route. So if that's the case (I know the IP is right, the cert checks out, and there isn't any DNS involved), is that enough to feel safe at that point of entry? Finally, if I can safely log in via the IP, does anyone have any advice on where to check first on CPanel for why the SSL port is forwarding to a site on karate? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to stop registration attempts on Asterisk

  - by Travesty3

  The main question: My Asterisk logs are littered with messages like these: [2012-05-29 15:53:49] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:50] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:54:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:54:03] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"55435217"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"1731687005"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=dEBcOzUysX [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=9zUari4Mve [2012-05-30 01:19:00] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=sOYgI1ItQn [2012-05-30 01:19:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=2EGLTzZSEi [2012-05-30 01:19:04] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=j0JfZoPcur [2012-05-30 01:19:06] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=Ra0DFDKggt [2012-05-30 01:19:08] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=rR7q7aTHEz [2012-05-30 01:19:10] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=VHUMtOpIvU [2012-05-30 01:19:12] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=JxZUzBnPMW I use Asterisk for an automated phone system. The only thing it does is receives incoming calls and executes a Perl script. No outgoing calls, no incoming calls to an actual phone, no phones registered with Asterisk. It seems like there should be an easy way to block all unauthorized registration attempts, but I have struggled with this for a long time. It seems like there should be a more effective way to prevent these attempts from even getting far enough to reach my Asterisk logs. Some setting I could turn on/off that doesn't allow registration attempts at all or something. Is there any way to do this? Also, am I correct in assuming that the "Registration from ..." messages are likely people attempting to get access to my Asterisk server (probably to make calls on my account)? And what's the difference between those messages and the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages? Further detail: I know that the "Registration from ..." lines are intruders attempting to get access to my Asterisk server. With Fail2Ban set up, these IPs are banned after 5 attempts (for some reason, one got 6 attempts, but w/e). But I have no idea what the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages mean or how to stop these potential intrusion attempts. As far as I can tell, they have never been successful (haven't seen any weird charges on my bills or anything). Here's what I have done: Set up hardware firewall rules as shown below. Here, xx.xx.xx.xx is the IP address of the server, yy.yy.yy.yy is the IP address of our facility, and aa.aa.aa.aa, bb.bb.bb.bb, and cc.cc.cc.cc are the IP addresses that our VoIP provider uses. Theoretically, ports 10000-20000 should only be accessible by those three IPs.+-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | Order | Source Ip | Protocol | Direction | Action | Destination Ip | Destination Port | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | 1 | cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 2 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 80 | | 3 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2749 | | 4 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 443 | | 5 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 53 | | 6 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1981 | | 7 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1991 | | 8 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2001 | | 9 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 137-138 | | 10 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 139 | | 11 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 445 | | 14 | aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 17 | bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 18 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1971 | | 19 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2739 | | 20 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1023-1050 | | 21 | any | all | inbound | deny | any on server | 1-65535 | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ Set up Fail2Ban. This is sort of working, but it's reactive instead of proactive, and doesn't seem to be blocking everything (like the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages). Set up rules in sip.conf to deny all except for my VoIP provider. Here is my sip.conf with almost all commented lines removed (to save space). Notice at the bottom is my attempt to deny all except for my VoIP provider:[general] context=default allowguest=no allowoverlap=no bindport=5060 bindaddr=0.0.0.0 srvlookup=yes disallow=all allow=g726 allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=g726aal2 allow=adpcm allow=slin allow=lpc10 allow=speex allow=g726 insecure=invite alwaysauthreject=yes ;registertimeout=20 registerattempts=0 register = user:pass:[email protected]:5060/700 [mysipprovider] type=peer username=user fromuser=user secret=pass host=sip.mysipprovider.com fromdomain=sip.mysipprovider.com nat=no ;canreinvite=yes qualify=yes context=inbound-mysipprovider disallow=all allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=gsm insecure=port,invite deny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 permit=aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 permit=bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 permit=cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255

  Read the article

• Lock System when certain hardware is removed

  - by er4z0r

  Hi all, I am working at a company where you are suppused to lock your screen whenever you leave your desk alone for a few minutes. Now I wondered if there is a nifty little tool that would lock my screen once a certain device is removed from the system. The ideal thing would of course be to have a short-range transmitter that causes the screen to be locked once it goes out of range. But for now I would also stick with removing a pen-drive from my laptop. I am pretty sure this is feasible. I just wan't to know if there are any preexistent projects.

  Read the article

• Account to read AD, join machine to domain, delete computer accounts and move computers to OUs

  - by Ben

  I want to create an account that will perform the following: Join computers to a domain (not restricted to 10, like a normal user) Check for computer accounts in AD Delete computers from AD Move computers between OUs I don't want to allow it to do anything else, so don't want a domain admin account. Can anyone guide me in the right direction in terms of permissions? Not sure if I should be using delegation of control wizard? Cheers, Ben

  Read the article

• kinit gives me a Kerberos ticket, but no AFS token

  - by Tomas Lycken

  I'm trying to setup access to my university's IT environment from my laptop running Ubuntu 12.04, by (mostly) following the IT-department's guides on AFS and Kerberos. I can get AFS working well enough so that I can navigate to my home folder (located in the nada.kth.se cell of AFS), and I can get Kerberos working well enough to forward tickets and authenticate me when I connect with ssh. However, I don't seem to get any AFS tokens locally, on my machine, so I can't just go to /afs/nada.kth.se/.../folder/file.txt on my machine and edit it. I can't even stand in /afs/nada.kth.se/.../folder and run ls without getting Permission denied errors. Why doesn't kinit -f [email protected] give me an AFS token? What do I need to do to get one?

  Read the article

• How do I remove the ServerSignature added by mod_fcgid?

  - by matthew

  I'm running Mod_Security and I'm using the SecServerSignature to customize the Server header that Apache returns. This part works fine, however I'm also running mod_fcgid which appends "mod_fcgid/2.3.5" to the header. Is there any way I can turn this off? Setting ServerSignature off doesn't do anything. I was able to get it to go away by changing the ServerTokens but that removed the customization I had added.

  Read the article

• How to securely delete files stored on a SSD?

  - by Chris Neuroth

  From a (very long, but definitely worth to read) article on SSDs: When you delete a file in your OS, there is no reaction from either a hard drive or SSD. It isn’t until you overwrite the sector (on a hard drive) or page (on a SSD) that you actually lose the data. File recovery programs use this property to their advantage and that’s how they help you recover deleted files. The key distinction between HDDs and SSDs however is what happens when you overwrite a file. While a HDD can simply write the new data to the same sector, a SSD will allocate a new (or previously used) page for the overwritten data. The page that contains the now invalid data will simply be marked as invalid and at some point it’ll get erased. So, what would be the best way to securely erase files stored on a SSD? Overwriting with random data as we are used to from hard disks (e.g. using the "shred" utility) won't work unless you overwrite the WHOLE drive...

  Read the article

• How can I get a data usage/access log for an external hard-drive?

  - by Vittorio Vittori

  Hello, I'm working in an office with many people and sometimes I leave my external hard drive with my personal data inside. I would to know if there is some way to see if my hard disk was used during my absence. I'm not the computer administrator, so I can't use exclusive file permissions and I would really like to know hard disk is opened from another computer. I am using a Mac. Does exist some other way to protect personal data on usb device like an hard-drive? If yes can you write some link to possible guides? I hope there is some ploy!!

  Read the article

• hard drive forensics tool for linux

  - by Jack

  I am looking for an application I used in 2001. It was a curses application that displayed devices or files in hexadecimal format, and allowed searching through them and other functionality. I can't find anything remotely like this, does anyone have an idea?

  Read the article

• Start multiple instances of Firefox

  - by Vi

  How can I have multiple independent instances of Mozilla Firefox 3.5 on the same X server, but started from different user accounts (consequently, different profiles)? Limited success was only with Xephyr :1, DISPLAY=:1 /usr/local/bin/firefox, but Xephyr has no Cygwin/X's "rootless" mode so it's not comfortable (see other question). The idea is to have one Firefox instance for various "Serious Business" things and the other for regular browsing with dozens of add-ons securely isolated.

  Read the article

• SELinux adding new allowed samba type to access httpd_sys_content_t?

  - by Josh

  allow samba_share_t httpd_sys_content_t {read execute getattr setattr write}; allow smbd_t httpd_sys_content_t {read execute getattr setattr write}; I am taking a stab in the dark with resources I've looked at, at various places that the above policies are what I want. I basically want to allow Samba to write to my web docs without giving it free access to the operating system. I read a post by a NSA rep saying the best way was defining a new type and allowing both samba and httpd access. Setting the content to public content (public_content_rw_t) does not work without making use of some unrestrictive booleans. To state this in short, how do I allow samba to access a new type?

  Read the article

• How secure is the Subversion connection to an https URL

  - by reprogrammer

  I'm using TortoiseSVN as my subversion client on Windows 7. My subversion repository has an https URL. I'm on a public network and I'd like to make sure that my connection to the server is secure. I wonder if TortoiseSVN encrypts my password when it talks to my repository.

  Read the article

• How to create a password-less service account in AD?

  - by Andrew White

  Is it possible to create domain accounts that can only be accessed via a domain administrator or similar access? The goal is to create domain users that have certain network access based on their task but these users are only meant for automated jobs. As such, they don't need passwords and a domain admin can always do a run-as to drop down to the correct user to run the job. No password means no chance of someone guessing it or it being written down or lost. This may belong on SuperUser ServerFault but I am going to try here first since it's on the fuzzy border to me. I am also open to constructive alternatives.

  Read the article

• Cannot access an application folder in Program files

  - by GiddyUpHorsey

  I recently installed Windows 7 Professional 64bit on a new machine. I installed an application using a ClickOnce installer. The application runs fine, but I cannot access the application folder it created in c:\Program files (x86). It bombs with access denied. I try to view the properties on the folder and it takes about 1 minute to display (other folders take 1 second). It says I cannot view any information because I'm not the owner. It doesn't say who the current owner is (instead - Unable to display current owner.) but says I can take ownership. When I try it fails again with Access Denied, even though I have administrative permissions. Why can't I access this folder nor take ownership?

  Read the article

• Is zip's encryption really bad?

  - by Nifle

  The standard advice for many years regarding compression and encryption has been that the encryption strength of zip is bad. Is this really the case in this day and age? I read this article about WinZip (it has had the same bad reputation). According to that article the problem is removed provided you follow a few rules when choosing your password. At least 12 characters in length Be random not contain any dictionary, common words or names At least one Upper Case Character Have at least one Lower Case Character Have at least one Numeric Character Have at least one Special Character e.g. $,£,*,%,&,! This would result in roughly 475,920,314,814,253,000,000,000 possible combinations to brute force Please provide recent (say past five years) links to back up your information.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 admin denied access to taskmgr, system32 dir

  - by DotNet Zebra

  I have a Windows 7 (32-bit) box with 2 users, both admins (my wife and I are both developers). My admin account was created during Windows setup, hers was created later. Both accounts are in the same groups, yet we have VERY different permissions. In the beta and RC, both accounts worked identically (RC to RTM was a fresh install on this box, not an upgrade). I have a C:\bin folder with the sysinternals utilities and a bunch of other stuff. Running anything in there or in system32 just works on my account, on hers I get access denied errors (cannot access file or path). If I right click and try Run As Administrator, I still get the same thing!!!

  Read the article

• PCRE limits exceeded, but triggering rules are SQL related

  - by Wolfe

  [Mon Oct 15 17:12:13 2012] [error] [client xx.xx.xx.xx] ModSecurity: Rule 1d4ad30 [id "300014"][file "/usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf"][line "349"] - Execution error - PCRE limits exceeded (-8): (null). [hostname "domain.com"] [uri "/admin.php"] [unique_id "UHx8LEUQwYEAAGutKkUAAAEQ"] And similar are spamming my error log for apache. It's only the admin side.. and only these two lines in the config: line 349: #Generic SQL sigs SecRule ARGS "(or.+1[[:space:]]*=[[:space:]]1|(or 1=1|'.+)--')" "id:300014,rev:1,severity:2,msg:'Generic SQL injection protection'" And line 356: SecRule ARGS "(insert[[:space:]]+into.+values|select.*from.+[a-z|A-Z|0-9]|select.+from|bulk[[:space:]]+insert|union.+select|convert.+\(.*from)" Is there a way to fix this problem? Can someone explain what is going on or if these rules are even valid to cause this error? I know it's supposedly a recursion protection.. but these protect against SQL injection so I'm confused.

  Read the article

• Does WD Drive Lock encrypt the data?

  - by ssg

  I wonder if WD Drive Lock ineed encrypts the data on a Western Digital My Book Essential device or just puts a firmware-level password on the device. If it's just a password the data surely could be retrieved by a third party. I could not find anything on about that on user manuals. I found a blog saying "data is secured with AES256" bla bla but that doesn't say anything about if the password could be compromised or not. Because I don't see any delays when I add/remove the password. On the other hand when I enable BitLocker, it takes hours before it encrypts everything with my password.

  Read the article

• Kernel Log "TCP: Treason uncloaked!"

  - by hurikhan77

  On one linux server (Gentoo hardened), we are experiencing bursts of the following messages in dmesg from time to time: TCP: Treason uncloaked! Peer xx.xx.xxx.xxx:65039/80 shrinks window 4094157295:4094160199. Repaired. Is there anything we should take care of or is this normal? Update: Maybe related, we are using net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control = cubic. Kernel version is 2.6.28 with Gentoo hardening patches.

  Read the article

• mystery Internet traffic to port 445

  - by Ben Collver

  Recently, I noticed traffic from the office network to TCP port 445 on the Internet [a]. Below are the Linux firewall log entries to Facebook's network [b] and Google's network [c]. I would like to identify the source of this traffic. My first guess is that Facebook and Google might be using multiple TCP ports for SSL load balancing. However, I could not confirm this based on the web proxy logs. What else might it be? [a] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/204279 [b] Sep 4 08:30:03 firewall01 kernel: IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=10.0.0.131 DST=69.171.237.34 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=14287 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=51711 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 [c] Aug 28 06:02:41 firewall01 kernel: IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=10.0.0.115 DST=173.194.33.47 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=4558 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=49294 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0

  Read the article

• Registry remotley hacked win 7 need help tracking the perp

  - by user577229

  I was writing some .VBS code at thhe office that would allow certain file extensions to be downloaded without a warning dialog on a w7x32 system. The system I was writing this on is in a lab on a segmented subnet. All web access is via a proxy server. The only means of accessing my machine is via the internet or from within the labs MSFT AD domain. While writing and testing my code I found a message of sorts. Upon refresing the registry to verify my code changed a dword, instead the message HELLO was written and visible in regedit where the dword value wass called for. I took a screen shot and proceeded to edit my code. This same weird behavior occurred last time I was writing registry code except on another internal server. I understand that remote registry access exists for windows systems. I will block this immediately once I return to the office. What I want to know is, can I trace who made this connection? How would I do this? I suspect the cause of this is the cause of other "odd" behaviors I'm experiencing at work such as losing control of my input director master control for over an hour and unchanged code that all of a sudden fails for no logical region. These failures occur at funny times, whenver I'm about to give a demonstration of my test code. I know this sounds crazy however knowledge of the registry component makes this believable. Once the registry can be accessed, the entire system is compromised. Any help or sanity checking is appreciated.

  Read the article

• WEP/WPA/WPA2 and wifi sniffing

  - by jcea

  Hi, I know that WEP traffic can be "sniffed" by any user of the WIFI. I know that WPA/WPA2 traffic is encrypted using a different link key for each user, so they can't sniff traffic... unless they capture the initial handshake. If you are using a PSK (preshared key) schema, then you recover the link key trivially from this initial handshake. If you don't know the PSK, you can capture the handshake and try to crack the PSK by bruteforce offline. Is my understanding correct so far?. I know that WPA2 has AES mode and can use "secure" tokens like X.509 certificates and such, and it is said to be secure against sniffing because capturing the handshake doesn't help you. So, is WPA2+AES secure (so far) against sniffing, and how it actually works?. That is, how is the (random) link key negociated?. When using X.509 certificates or a (private and personal) passphrase. Do WPA/WPA2 have other sniffer-secure modes beside WPA2+AES? How is broadcast traffic managed to be received by all the WIFI users, if each has a different link key?. Thanks in advance! :).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >