Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 154/591 | < Previous Page | 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161  | Next Page >

  • Why are email transfers between mail servers often not encrypted? Why aren't users warned about it?

    - by AmV
    Users can often choose if they want to access their email provider (such as Gmail) using a secure channel (e.g. using HTTPS). However, to the best of my knowledge, when it comes to mail-server-to-mail-server communications, most emails are still transferred in plain text and not encrypted, making it possible to anybody on the network to read their content. Are there any technologies that give the user some guarantees that his emails are sent securely from end to end ? Why not let the user know when encryption is not supported and let him choose if he wants his email to be still delivered ?

    Read the article

  • central log-server with auditdisp

    - by johan
    I want to setup a central log-server. The log-server is running with debian 6.0.6 and the audit daemon is installed in version 1.7.13-1. The Clients are running with Red Hat 5.5 and they connect to the log-server via audispd. The connection works fine and i get all messages from each node. My questions is: is it possible that the auditd daemon from the log server write the messages from each node in a separate file? I try to transfer the messages via the syslog daemon, that works but i can not use tools like ausearch to analyze these log-files.

    Read the article

  • How would you change a home wireless router with a self-signed admin site certificate to be more secure?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • Restrict Computer or Users from Internet but allow access to intranet and Windows Update / ePO?

    - by MoSiAc
    So this may be impossible but I've been asked to try and find something about it. So far nothing I have found is possible. I need to restrict specific machines or user accounts from regular Internet access but let them have access to the intranet portion of our network. I do not have Active Directory control, nor does anyone at my local workplace (corporate control in a different state). I have tried going through IPsec and doing this per local machine, but that system seems to have been removed from the images that are installed on these machines so that is out. So far the only other option I can think of is assigning the machines a specific ip address and removing their gateway access. This would probably work but the machines need to be able to receive updates that are being pushed to them through ePO and LanDesk. I would really like to do this on the user level because then if I need to do tech work to the machine and need internet access I can get to it but a "special" user could login and not be able to get into anything.

    Read the article

  • Windows: View "all" permissions of a specific user or group

    - by peterchen
    For a Windows domain, is there a way to see for a certain user or group, where the user/group has permissions? Primarily: List which files / folders the user can access on a certain network share. (Kind of a recursive "effective permissions") However, other permissions would be cool as well. I believe I've seen such a tool in action, but I can't remember anything beyond that - so this might be a false memory. Recommendations?

    Read the article

  • Running Radius on a Novell Backbone

    - by YsoL8
    Hello I am a rookie network engineer and I've been asked to create a secure wireless system intergrated with an existing network. So far I'd decided to use 802.1x secuity with a Radius enabled server over a Novell backbone. My question is: does Novell still support this type of server setup? I heard rumours it is at the end of it's supported life and I'd like some confirmation. Also can I get some recommendations on better backbone / server providers. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Chrome - Why am I automatically authenticated to a web app even after clearing browser cookies?

    - by Howiecamp
    I am accessing a web application using Chrome. If I sign out of the app and clear all Chrome history/cookies/etc (even Flash cookies which are now handled by Chrome in the same Clear History area) and then re-access the site, I am automatically logged in without being prompted for credentials. I then launched Chrome in Incognito mode and was able to reproduce the same behavior. However, the I was prompted upon the first logon while in Incognito mode. The web application behaves as expected in Internet Explorer 10. Some info about the application: It's a Sharepoint site using NTLM authentication The credentials are Active Directory-based, as the username is domain\username My connection is over the Internet and there is no AD relationship between my local Windows account, my Windows PC. In other words I (meaning my locally logged on user and my PC) are not in any way part of their AD domain. The site is running SSL on port 443 Why might Chrome be automatically authenticating me?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to have an external server within a company's firewall?

    - by Jonathan
    Hi guys, I am sure this is server admin 101, but I am unsure of the answer and would love some help. I am a software developer I have built an application for a client and am currently hosting it successfully on SliceHost. We are now coming out of Beta and the client wants to have the application within their firewall, but they do not want to deal with headache of hosting and maintaining the server. Is there a way I can recommend that we put our server at SliceHost within their Firewall? Is that an easy thing to do? Their specific requirements are: For my application to authenticate against their Active Directory, and Only allow access to the application from within their network If that is not possible, what should I recommend to my client?

    Read the article

  • CentOS: How to prevent a user from executing an application installed in a specific directory

    - by slayernoah
    I have an application installed in /etc/mydir. I have executed the following to remove the ability for users to execute this program. chown root:group1 /etc/mydir -R chmod 700 /etc/mydir -R I created a new user and logged in as this user. The new user was not added to group1 However, I was able to execute this program by just typing the program name. How can I stop users being able to run this using chmod and chown. Please let me know. PS. the new users cannot cd into /etc/mydir but they can still execute using the program name.

    Read the article

  • Router reporting failed admin login attempts from home server

    - by jeffora
    I recently noticed in the logs of my home router that it relatively regularly lists the following entry: [admin login failure] from source 192.168.0.160, Monday, June 20,2011 18:13:25 192.168.0.160 is the internal address of my home server, running Windows Home Server 2011. Is there anyway I can find out what specifically is trying to login to the router? Or is there some explanation for this behaviour? (not sure if this belongs here or on superuser...)

    Read the article

  • Locking down firmware to keep stolen laptop from being formatted?

    - by Matt Ridge
    On the Mac laptops there are ways through the terminal to lock down the computer so that if someone tries to format the computer they won't be able to do it without the password. This way locks down the firmware. Is there a universal way to do the same thing on a PC? I know there are brands out there such as Samsung, Dell, etc that utilize different fimware types, and in turn will mean that their firmware will be locked down differently. That being said is there a "command code" that will allow you to lock the firmware to keep theives from formatting the hard drive and wiping out your data? I know a person who has time, and knowledge can get any password, and hopefully the person is smart enough to use another password to lock down the firmware, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if it's possible, and if so how? Does the standard PC user require a 3rd party app, or can it be done through the command line? Or Terminal if you are on Linux?

    Read the article

  • Attack from anonymous proxy

    - by mmgn
    We got attacked by some very-bored teenagers registering in our forums and posting very explicit material using anonymous proxy websites, like http://proxify.com/ Is there a way to check the registration IP against a black list database? Has anyone experienced this and had success?

    Read the article

  • Manually start screensaver with password protect

    - by gibberish
    Windows 7 I wish to manually lock the computer so I placed a shortcut to scrnsave.exe on the desktop. (I do not want the user to use Ctrl+Alt+Del -- Lock This Computer for various reasons) Problem is that when double-clicked, the screen saver starts but it's not password protected. However, in Personalization -- Screen Saver, that same screen saver is the selected one and it IS configured to display logon screen upon resume. And that works when Windows starts the screen saver. So how can I cause "On resume, display logon screen" behavior by manually starting a screen saver? (Scripting is an option if I know what to do.)

    Read the article

  • Could it be that "chkrootkit" just doesn't like .hmac, .packlist, and .relocation-tag files?

    - by Danijel
    I just cleaned up my hacked CentOS server (due to not updating since versino 5.3). But still, "chkrootkit" says this: Possible t0rn v8 \(or variation\) rootkit installed /usr/lib/.libfipscheck.so.1.1.0.hmac /usr/lib/.libgcrypt.so.11.hmac /usr/lib/.libfipscheck.so.1.hmac /lib/.libcrypto.so.0.9.8e.hmac /lib/.libssl.so.0.9.8e.hmac /lib/.libssl.so.6.hmac /lib/.libcrypto.so.6.hmac /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Text/Iconv/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/HTML-Tree/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Font/AFM/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/MLDBM/Sync/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/MLDBM/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/FreezeThaw/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Apache/ASP/.packlist /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/HTML-Format/.packlist /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/immodules/.relocation-tag /usr/lib/python2.4/plat-linux2/.relocation-tag /usr/lib/python2.4/distutils/.relocation-tag /usr/lib/python2.4/config/.relocation-tag Could it be that "chkrootkit" just doesn't like .hmac, .packlist, and .relocation-tag files? Are these realy still infected?

    Read the article

  • Hide/Replace Nginx Location Header?

    - by Steven Ou
    I am trying to pass a PCI compliance test, and I'm getting a single "high risk vulnerability". The problem is described as: Information on the machine which a web server is located is sometimes included in the header of a web page. Under certain circumstances that information may include local information from behind a firewall or proxy server such as the local IP address. It looks like Nginx is responding with: Service: https Received: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Location: http://ip-10-194-73-254/ Server: nginx/1.0.4 + Phusion Passenger 3.0.7 (mod_rails/mod_rack) Status: 302 X-Powered-By: Phusion Passenger (mod_rails/mod_rack) 3.0.7 X-Runtime: 0 Content-Length: 90 Connection: Close <html><body>You are being <a href="http://ip-10-194-73-254/">redirect ed</a>.</body></html> I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong: but from what I gathered, I think the problem is that the Location header is returning http://ip-10-194-73-254/, which is a private address, when it should be returning our domain name (which is ravn.com). So, I'm guessing I need to either hide or replace the Location header somehow? I'm a programmer and not a server admin so I have no idea what to do... Any help would be greatly appreciated! Also, might I add that we're running more than 1 server, so the configuration would need to be transferable to any server with any private address.

    Read the article

  • Isolating Apache virtualhosts from the rest of the system

    - by JesperB
    I am setting up a web server that will host a number of different web sites as Apache VirtualHosts, each of these will have the possibility to run scripts (primarily PHP, possiblu others). My question is how I isolate each of these VirtualHosts from eachother and from the rest of the system? I don't want e.g. website X to read the configuration of website Y or any of the server's "private" files. At the moment I have set up the VirtualHosts with FastCGI, PHP and SUExec as described here (http://x10hosting.com/forums/vps-tutorials/148894-debian-apache-2-2-fastcgi-php-5-suexec-easy-way.html), but the SUExec only prevents users from editing/executing files other than their own - the users can still read sensitive information such as config files. I have thought about removing the UNIX global read permission for all files on the server, as this would fix the above problem, but I'm not sure if I can safely do this without disrupting the server function. I also looked into using chroot, but it seems that this can only be done on a per-server basis, and not on a per-virtual-host basis. I'm looking for any suggestions that will isolate my VirtualHosts from the rest of the system. PS I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 server

    Read the article

  • Very Slow DSL (ethernet) speed [New Interesting Update]

    - by Abhijit
    Very IMPORTANT and INTERESTING UPDATE: Due to some reason I just thought to do a complete new setup and this time I decided to again have openSUSE plus ubuntu. So I first reinstall lubuntu and then I installed OpenSUSE 12.2 (64 bit). Now, my DSL speed is working very normal and fine on opensuse. So this is very scary. Is it possible for any operating system to manipulate my NIC so that it will work fine only on that operating system and not on another os? Regarding positive thinking and not being paranoid, what is it that makes ONLY suse to get my NIC to work at normal speed but ubuntu can not do it? Not even fedora? Not even linux mint? What all these OS are lacking that enables suse to work great? == ORIGINAL QUESTION == I 'was' on opensuse 12.2 when my dsl speed was normal. Yesterday I switched from opensuse to ubuntu 12.04 and speed decreased. It came to range of 7-10-13-20-25-kbps. Then I switch to linux mint, and then to fedora. Still slow speed. When I was in ubuntu I disabled ipv6 but still no luck. Now I am in fedora but this time with DIFFERENT ISP. And still I am getting very slow sped. So my guess is this is nothing to do with os. What can be wrong? Is this problem of NIC? Does NIC speed decreases over time? Does NIC life ends over time as with keyboard or mouse? Help please All the os I used are 64 bit and my laptop is Compaq Presario A965Tu Intel Centrino DUal Core. Interesting thing to notice is I get normal speed while downloading torrent inside torrent client softwares. This slow speed issue applied to download from any web browser or installing software using terminal.

    Read the article

  • OSX - Update "Java for OS X 2012-002" is not mentioned on support.apple.com, is this ok?

    - by snies
    Straight after installing "Java for OS X 2012-001" Software Update asks me to install "Java for OS X 2012-002", which has the exact same size (66.6 MB) and description (including the same two links: HT5055 and HT1222) as the former, which strikes me as odd. The "Java for OS X 2012-001" is described on the apple support pages, but the "Java for OS X 2012-002" is not mentioned anywhere. Also searching on google does not yield any usable results. What is your opinon? Am i paranoid? Did you also see this update?

    Read the article

  • .htaccess redirection resulting alias plus directory name

    - by austin cheney
    I am using .htaccess file to redirect all web traffic in a folder to ssl, because the directory prompts users for a login. When a user logs in they are redirected from https://subdir.mailmarkup.org/ to https://subdir.mailmarkup.org/~homedir/subdir. I want users to be redirected from http to https, and this is occuring successfully, however, I do not want users redirected from the first path mentioned above to the second. How do I prevent this?

    Read the article

  • How secure is a subnet?

    - by HorusKol
    I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to use a SSH key with an empty passphrase?

    - by mozillalives
    When I first learned how to make ssh keys, the tutorials I read all stated that a good passphrase should be chosen. But recently, when setting up a daemon process that needs to ssh to another machine, I discovered that the only way (it seems) to have a key that I don't need to auth at every boot is to create a key with an empty passphrase. So my question is, what are the concerns with using a key with no passphrase?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to use an administrator account for everyday use if UAC is on?

    - by Valentin Radu
    Since I switched to Windows 7 about 3 years ago, and now using Windows 8.1, I have become familiar with the concept of User Account Control and used my PC the following way: a standard account which I use for every day work and the built-in Administrator account activated and used only to elevate processes when they request so, or to ”Run as administrator” applications when I need to. However, recently after reading more about User Account Control, I started wondering if my way of working is good? Or should I use an administrator account for every day work, since an administrator account is not elevated until requested by apps, or until I request so via the ”Run as administrator” option? I am asking this because I read somewhere that the built-in Administrator account is a true administrator, by which I mean UAC doesn't pop up when logged in within it, and I am scared of not having problems when potential malicious software come into scene. I have to mention that I do not use it on a daily basis, just when I need to elevate some apps. I barely log in into it 10 times a year... So, how's better? Thanks for your answers! And Happy New Year, of course! P.S. I asked this a year ago (:P) and I think I should reiterate it: is an administrator account as safe these days as a standard account coupled with the built-in Administrator account when needed?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161  | Next Page >