Search Results

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

Page 153/706 | < Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >

  • md5sum or sha1sum of legitmate microsoft system files

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • My gmail password hacked in Firefox?

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Basic IPTables setup for OpenVPN/HTTP/HTTPS server

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

    Read the article

  • Member of local Administrators group cannot elevate

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Avoiding users to corrupt and use a script

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

    Read the article

  • Securing NTP: which method to use?

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

    Read the article

  • Client-side certificates

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

    Read the article

  • Adjust iptables

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Why obfuscating a serial number of a device? What is the risk?

    - by Horst Walter
    In one of my xx.stackexchange questions I've got an answer, in which the user has obfuscated his disk's SN (serial number). Recently I have seen this in several photos as well, the SN was blurred out. I' am just curious, because I have never paid attention to this. What could be the potential risk in publishing a device's SN? I do see some sense when it comes to a MAC address, OK, this could be used for tracking. But a SN of a disk, iPad, whatsoever? Maybe there is an important reason for not publishing it, which I haven't seen so far.

    Read the article

  • Protecting a SVN server

    - by user35072
    For various reasons we are finding it increasingly difficult to work with remote workers. We are a very small developer shop and it's becoming impractical to do manual merges on a daily basis. So we're left with little choice (?) but to consider opening up our SVN servers. I'm looking into the following: Full HTTPS session Running non-80 port Strong password policy Is this enough to prevent someone hacking and stealing data? I will also look into VPN but first would like to understand any alternative solutions.

    Read the article

  • strategy /insights for avoiding document content loss due to encryption

    - by pbernatchez
    I'm about to encourage a group of people to begin using S-Mime and GPG for digital signatures and encryption. I foresee a nightmare of encrypted documents which can no longer be recovered because of lost keys. The thorniest issue is archiving. The natural way to preserve privacy in an archive is to archive the encrypted document. But that opens us up to the risk of a lost key when time comes to unarchive a document, or a forgotten password. After all it will be a long way in the future. This would be equivalent to having destroyed the document. First thought is archiving keys with documents, but that still leaves the forgotten pass phrase. Archiving the passphrase too would be tantamount to archiving in the clear. No privacy. What approaches do you use? What insights can you offer on the issue?

    Read the article

  • Win7 UAC tokens

    - by Talc
    It is known that under win7 UAC you receive 2 tokens when you logon to the system: std user token and admin token. If I disable UAC, what should I get? only admin token? or still both with no consideration to the UAC status?

    Read the article

  • IIS and PHP restrict IO permissions

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

    Read the article

  • How to secure svn+ssh checkout users?

    - by vvanscherpenseel
    All our SVN repositories are hosted on a dedicated machine on which all the developers have access. Every now and then we need to checkout a repository on a machine we don't own or operate ourselves. Currently we all use our own system (SSH) account for this, but instead I would like to use some generic 'checkoutsvn' user that can be used for this. This user is only used for checking out from a repository, but should not be allowed to log in to the system (no shell access). I tried to do this by setting the default shell of that account to /sbin/nologin but then SVN fails, as apparently svn+ssh requires shell access. How do you do this? Is there a good solution for this?

    Read the article

  • How can I restrict the backuppc client user as much as possible? (rsync)

    - by jxn
    I have backuppc making full backups of servers, but I'd like to be sure that my set up is as paranoid as possible. BackupPC is set up to backup via rsync, and it is set up to use a specific user on each client to be backed up. Because the backuppc client user has to have access to every file on the client machine and the ability to ssh into the machine without an interactive password, I'm a little nervous about securing the clients, and I'd like to know I haven't overlooked any options. Here's what I have in place: in the client user's authorized_keys file, i've included from="IPTOSERVER",command="/usr/bin/rsync" before the user's public key, so that the user can only login coming from the BackupPC server. Next, in the sudoers file, I've added this line: backuppc ALL=NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/rsync to allow root-level permissions only for the rsync command for that user. Are there other user, policy, or ssh restrictions that I can add while still allowing the backup pc client user to rsync all files?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >