Search Results

Search found 17646 results on 706 pages for 'security warning'.

Page 147/706 | < Previous Page | 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154  | Next Page >

• Apache httpOnly Cookie Information Disclosure CVE-2012-0053

  - by John

  A PCI compliance scan, on a CentOS LAMP server fails with this message. The server header and ServerSignature don't expose the Apache version. Apache httpOnly Cookie Information Disclosure CVE-2012-0053 Can this be resolved by simply specifying a custom ErrorDocument for the 400 Bad Request response? How is the scanner determining this vulnerability, is it invoking a bad request then looking to see if it's the default Apache 400 response?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu server; Backup of server and MySql database, and Solr database

  - by Camran

  How is backup done on ubuntu servers? I have a server (Ubuntu 9.10) which has apache2 installed, php5, mysql etc... The website is a classifieds website where all classifieds are stored in mysql and Solr. I need to backup this server with all information to be able to fully restore it if something goes wrong. How should I start? Is it an automated task, or will I do backups manually? (prefer manually) Thanks

  Read the article

• What could cause these "failed to authenticate" logs other than failed login attempts (OSX)?

  - by Tom

  I've found this in the Console logs: 10/03/10 3:53:58 PM SecurityAgent[156] User info context values set for tom 10/03/10 3:53:58 PM authorizationhost[154] Failed to authenticate user (tDirStatus: -14090). 10/03/10 3:54:00 PM SecurityAgent[156] User info context values set for tom 10/03/10 3:54:00 PM authorizationhost[154] Failed to authenticate user (tDirStatus: -14090). 10/03/10 3:54:03 PM SecurityAgent[156] User info context values set for tom 10/03/10 3:54:03 PM authorizationhost[154] Failed to authenticate user (tDirStatus: -14090). There are about 11 of these "failed to authenticate" messages logged in quick succession. It looks to me like someone is sitting there trying to guess the password. However, when I tried to replicate this I get the same log messages except that this extra message appears after five attempts: 13/03/10 1:18:48 PM DirectoryService[11] Failed Authentication return is being delayed due to over five recent auth failures for username: tom. I don't want to accuse someone of trying to break into an account without being sure that they were actually trying to break in. My question is this: is it almost definitely someone guessing a password, or could the 11 "failed to authenticate" messages be caused by something else? EDIT: The actual user wasn't logged in, or using a computer at the time of the log in attempts.

  Read the article

• Windows XP: Consequences of setting a password for an account

  - by sleske

  I do not quite understand how Windows (specifically Windows XP) handles accounts with/without passwords. As far as I can see, on a fresh Windows XP install I have one default account which has admin rights does not have a password will auto-login (without password prompt) when the computer boots What happens if I set a password for this account? Will it still auto-login? Or will it always prompt for the PW? And generally, what consequences does it have if I set a password? I noted that Scheduled Tasks apparently cannot run under an account w/o password (creating a scheduled task will prompt for the account PW). Is there anything that will not work with a password set? Why is it even possible to have accounts without a password? I have some Unix/Linux background, but the concepts appear a little different under Windows.

  Read the article

• securing unpatched websites

  - by neuron

  I have a client with a lot (read several thousand) websites in several old cms solutions that are no longer maintained. Now moving all of them to a maintained solution isn't really an option at this point. So I'm thinking about ways to secure the solutions without patching them. The solutions are mostly joomla 1.0/1.5 and wordpress. What I'm thinking is something like this: mod_suexec to lock everyone into their own home directory apparmor to deny any and all file writes by default. (exclude by default, include things like "images" directories). use htaccess to prevent anything in writable directories from being executed. (aka disable php_engine for images/ directory). mysql triggers to check the "users" tables to prevent adding new admins/superadmins. Does this make sense? Is it viable? Am I missing something obvious?

  Read the article

• Does the password get sent in the clear when connecting to Sql-Server?

  - by Scott Chamberlain

  I was asked this today and I honestly did not know the answer. If you connect using a connection string without sspi to a server is there any way a 3rd party can intercept on the wire the password used to log in? "Data Source=MyServer;Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;User Id=sa;Password=CanThisBeSniffed;" I am not asking about MiTM attacks just someone listing on the same computer or on the same hub on the network with wireshark or something similar running. I fired up wireshark myself and did not see it in plain text but it could be a simple obfuscation or proper encryption, I just wanted to know which.

  Read the article

• Locking down a server for shared internet hosting.

  - by Wil

  Basically I control several servers and I only host either static websites or scripts which I have designed, so I trust them up to a point. However, I have a few customers who want to start using scripts such as Wordpress or many others - and they want full control over their account. I have started to do the basics - like on php.ini, I have locked it down and restricted commands such as proc, however, there is obviously a lot more I can do. right now, using NTFS permissions, I am trying to lock down the server by running Application Pools and individual sites in their own user, however I feel like I am hitting brick walls... (My old question on Server Fault). At the moment, the only route I can think of is either to implement an off the shelf control panel - which will be expensive and quite frankly, over the top, or look at the Microsoft guide - which is really for an entire infrastructure, not for someone who just wants to lock down a few servers. Does anyone have any guides that can put me on the correct path?

  Read the article

• stunnel crashing

  - by Jay

  I'm trying to use stunnel to secure a legacy application's communications. I can't seem to get it setup and working. Can anyone provide any hints where I'm going wrong? Here's what I'm trying to accomplish: A windows service on a client machine connects to a server on port 7000 using TCP. I'd like to encrypt the communication between client and server. Here's what I've tried: Created a new server that accepts ssl connections on port 7443. Got a certificate for the server and installed it. That seems to work with my test setup. Installed stunnel on my windows machine (version 7.43 from the distribution archive file). Installed libssl32.dll and libeay32.dll in the same directory as stunnel.exe ( from the openssl-0.9.8h-1 binary distribution). Installed it as a service using "stunnel -install" Configured stunnel as follows: debug=7 output=C:\p4\internal\Utility\Proxy\proxy.log service=Proxy taskbar=no [exchange] accept=7000 client=yes connect=proxy.blah.com:7443 I changed my hosts file to trick the old application into connecting through stunnel: server.blah.com 127.0.0.1 # when client looks up server it goes to stunnel proxy.blah.com IP-address-of-server.blah.com # stunnel connects to new server "server.blah.com" now resolves to the machine it's running on (i.e. stunnel). "proxy.blah.com" goes to the real server. stunnel should connect to the server. I start the stunnel service and try to connect. It looks like it's working but the stunnel service just shuts down with no message. 2010.04.19 13:16:21 LOG5[4924:3716]: stunnel 4.33 on x86-pc-mingw32-gnu with OpenSSL 0.9.8h 28 May 2008 2010.04.19 13:16:21 LOG5[4924:3716]: Threading:WIN32 SSL:ENGINE Sockets:SELECT,IPv6 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG5[4924:3748]: Service exchange accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:4134 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG6[4924:3748]: connect_blocking: connecting x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG5[4924:3748]: connect_blocking: connected x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG5[4924:3748]: Service exchange connected remote server from x.253.120.19:4135 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: Reading configuration from file stunnel.conf 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Snagged 64 random bytes from C:/.rnd 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Wrote 1024 new random bytes to C:/.rnd 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: RAND_status claims sufficient entropy for the PRNG 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: PRNG seeded successfully 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: SSL context initialized for service exchange 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: Configuration successful 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: No limit detected for the number of clients 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: FD=312 in non-blocking mode 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Option SO_REUSEADDR set on accept socket 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Service exchange bound to 0.0.0.0:7000 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Service exchange opened FD=312 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: stunnel 4.33 on x86-pc-mingw32-gnu with OpenSSL 0.9.8h 28 May 2008 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: Threading:WIN32 SSL:ENGINE Sockets:SELECT,IPv6 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:4556]: Service exchange accepted FD=372 from 127.0.0.1:4156 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:4556]: Creating a new thread 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:4556]: New thread created 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: Service exchange started 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: FD=372 in non-blocking mode 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG5[3668:3756]: Service exchange accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:4156 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: FD=396 in non-blocking mode 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG6[3668:3756]: connect_blocking: connecting x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: connect_blocking: s_poll_wait x.80.60.32:7443: waiting 10 seconds 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG5[3668:3756]: connect_blocking: connected x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG5[3668:3756]: Service exchange connected remote server from x.253.120.19:4157 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: Remote FD=396 initialized 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): before/connect initialization 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write client hello A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server hello A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server certificate A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server done A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write client key exchange A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write change cipher spec A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write finished A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 flush data 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read finished A The client thinks the connection is closed: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it 127.0.0.1:7000 at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.DoConnect(EndPoint endPointSnapshot, SocketAddress socketAddress) at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.Connect(EndPoint remoteEP) at Service.ConnUtility.Connect() Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Homegroup and NTFS permissions

  - by bytenik

  I'm running a copy of Windows 7 as a "server" at my home. I have several file shares that I want to make available to specific users only. I've modified the NTFS permissions to only allow these users to access their respective shares. However, while a locally logged on user can access the actual folders just fine, over the network the remote access is authenticating as HomeGroupUser$ rather than the actual user in question, as shown by the Computer Management panel for shares. I do have matching user accounts (i.e. my username locally is abc and a parallel account with username abc and the same password exists on the server machine). I don't want to disable homegroup because there are other shares where homegroup authentication would be desirable, especially for some people where they don't have a parallel account. Is there a way to get the system to authenticate first by matching username, and then by homegroup authentication if there's no matching user?

  Read the article

• I want to use OpenVPN to access the web and email from China. How?

  - by gaoshan88

  My question: How do I use my already existing OpenVPN setup to enable secure, remote web surfing and email checking from open wireless hotspots? Some long winded details: I am running Ubuntu and have OpenVPN up and working fine as a server. My client machine connects fine as well. However, that just gets me a secure connection to my home network. What I want is to be able to access my VPN server and surf the web or check email securely from anywhere with an open wireless connection. I am frequently in China and having secure, unblocked access would be a boon (especially since I like to work from tea houses and coffee shops and I've already had a password sniffed and hacked once). I already know how to tunnel over SSH via a SOCKS proxy using something like: ssh -ND 8887 -p 22 [email protected] but since I have OpenVPN I figure why not try it? So... what are the steps involved in making it so I can connect to my VPN and the surf and check mail to my hearts content (slowly to be sure but at least it wold be secure). Thx!

  Read the article

• Best way to find the computer a user last logged on from?

  - by Garrett

  I am hoping that somewhere in Active Directory the "last logged on from [computer]" is written/stored, or there is a log I can parse out? The purpose of wanting to know the last PC logged on from is for offering remote support over the network - our users move around pretty infrequently, but I'd like to know that whatever I'm consulting was updating that morning (when they logged in, presumably) at minimum. I'm also considering login scripts that write the user and computer names to a known location I can reference, but some of our users don't like to logout for 15 days at a time. If there is an elegant solution that uses login scripts, definitely mention it - but if it happens to work for merely unlocking the station, that would be even better!

  Read the article

• Does a VPS need a firewall?

  - by Camran

  Do I need a firewall on my VPS which I ordered today? If so, which one would you recommend? I plan on running a classifieds website with Java, php, mysql. My OS is ubuntu 9.10 Thanks Btw: What is iptables?

  Read the article

• Windows 8.1 and fingerprint readers

  - by Sevenate

  Is there any build in UI for that kind of hardware like it exist in Modern UI for WiFi, Bluetooth, Broadband mobile and other common settings or I'm forced to use separate software (besides the obvious drivers for hardware)? The thing is that I have build-in fingerprint reader in my laptop and I have installed all necessary official drivers for it (and it looks like they are working fine, btw). But I did not find any UI settings where I could change Sign-in option from password/picture password/pin to fingerprint.

  Read the article

• Software Engineer's explanation of Facebook photo privacy, with UML diagram?

  - by Alex R

  Facebook photo privacy is more complex than most people think - including the bloggers who fill the Internet trying to explain it in simple terms. Not only there is the basic album-level privacy setting to consider, but also what happens with Tagging (and related privacy settings) as well as the Share button when clicked by a Friend. Has anybody seen a good, engineering-type (e.g. UML) diagram? I envision it should include the various privacy "states" a photo can be in, what causes state transitions, and the characteristics of each state? Thanks

  Read the article

• How secure is Remote Desktop from OSX to Windows Server 2003?

  - by dwhsix

  It's unclear to me exactly how secure Remote Desktop access from OSX to a Windows Server 2003 machine is. Is the communication encrypted by default? What level of encryption? Are there best practices for making this as secure as possible? I found http://www.mobydisk.com/techres/securing_remote_desktop.html but it's unclear how much of that is still relevant for current versions of RDP and Windows Server. I know I can tunnel RDP over ssh, but is that overkill or redundant? Thanks...

  Read the article

• How to report a malicious site to Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. so that they will warn users

  - by Jayapal Chandran

  I completed a project a year ago. Now a few modification were needed. While trying to test the site, there was an index.html file with a malicious script which had an iframe to another site's jar file. Kaspersky antivirus blocked it. I browsed via ftp to find the file and I deleted it. I also disabled directory listing. Maybe the ftp details of the site owner would have been hacked. I want to report this site to Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and other antivirus providers. How do I do that? I hope kaspersky would have updated it in their database, but I still want to explicitly report this. Here is the popup kaspersky showed:

  Read the article

• Putting a Windows DC, Exchange in a DMZ

  - by blsub6

  I have one guy at my company telling me that I should put FF:TMG in between my main Internet-facing firewall (Cisco 5510) and put my Exchange server and DC on the internal network. I have another guy telling me that I should put the Exchange server and DC in a DMZ I don't particularly like the idea of having my mailboxes and DC's usernames/passwords in a DMZ and I think that Windows authentication would require me opening up so many ports between my DMZ and my internal network that it would be a moot point to have it out there anyways. What are some thoughts? How do you have it set up?

  Read the article

• secure user-authentication in squid

  - by Isaac

  once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

  Read the article

• The Story of secure user-authentication in squid

  - by Isaac

  once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry if the story is boring and messy, but most of it is real! =) /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

  Read the article

• iptables ACCEPT policy

  - by kamae

  In Redhat EL 6, iptables INPUT policy is ACCEPT but INPUT chain has REJECT entry in the end. /etc/syconfig/iptables is as below: *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT Do you know why the policy is ACCEPT not DROP? I think setting DROP policy is safer than ACCEPT in case to make mistake in the chain. Actually the policy is not applied to any packet: # iptables -L -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)

  Read the article

• How to detect device type from device connected to router?

  - by molly

  I have a att router and there is an unknown device connected to my network. I can't seem to kick it off because of how att's router settings are created which is kind of dumb. I am able to see its local ip and mac address. I am on a mac with snow leopard. How can I get more information on the device with the information that I have? I want to see what kind of device it is, I have checked all devices that are connected to the router and none seem to match the local ip that is connected. I have WPA encryption setup with a strong password.

  Read the article

• iptables -- OK, **now** am I doing it right?

  - by Agvorth

  This is a follow up to a previous question where I asked whether my iptables config is correct. CentOS 5.3 system. Intended result: block everything except ping, ssh, Apache, and SSL. Based on xenoterracide's advice and the other responses to the question (thanks guys), I created this script: # Establish a clean slate iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -F # Flush all rules iptables -X # Delete all chains # Disable routing. Drop packets if they reach the end of the chain. iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Drop all packets with a bad state iptables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # Accept any packets that have something to do with ones we've sent on outbound iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Accept any packets coming or going on localhost (this can be very important) iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Accept ICMP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT # Allow ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow httpd iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSL iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP Now when I list the rules I get... # iptables -L -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 DROP all -- any any anywhere anywhere state INVALID 9 612 ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- any any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ssh 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- any any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https 0 0 DROP all -- any any anywhere anywhere Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 5 packets, 644 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination I ran it and I can still log in, so that's good. Anyone notice anything major out of wack?

  Read the article

• Is SSL to the proxy good enough?

  - by Josh Smeaton

  We are currently trying to decide on how best to do SSL traffic in our environment. We have an externally facing Apache proxy server that is responsible for directing all traffic into our environment. It is also doing the SSL work for the majority of our servers. There are one or two IIS servers in particular that are doing their own SSL, but they are also behind the proxy. I'm wondering, is SSL to the proxy good enough? It would mean that traffic within our network is identifiable, but is that such a big deal?

  Read the article

• Steps to make sure network is not blacklisted...Again

  - by msindle

  I have an interesting issue. I have a client that just got blacklisted due to spam being sent out over the last 2 days. I have my firewall configured to only allow mail to go outbound on port 25 from our mail server (Exchange 2010) exclusively and I have verified that there are no open relay's on our transport rules. We are running Vipre Business and after running deep scans with updated definitions all computers come back clean. I ran a message tracking report on our Exchange server that shows all mail sent via the mail server over the last couple of weeks and didn't see anything malicious or out of the ordinary. I have also verified that there are no home devices or rouge computers on the network. For all practical purposes it appears that the network is clean, but we still wound up on 5 or 6 blacklists...Where should I start looking next? Is there a "best practices" guide that can help eradicate this issue? Thanks in advance! msindle

  Read the article

• Web Server Users - Best Practice

  - by Toby

  I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154  | Next Page >