Search Results

Search found 21719 results on 869 pages for 'password security'.

Page 159/869 | < Previous Page | 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166  | Next Page >

• Does Guest WiFi on an Access Point make any sense? [migrated]

  - by Jason

  I have a Belkin WiFi Router which offers a feature of a secondary Guest Access WiFi network. Of course, the idea is that the Guest network doesn't have access to the computers/devices on the main network. I also have a Comcast-issues Cable Modem/Router device with mutliple wired ports, but no WiFi-capabilities. I prefer to only run one router/DHCP/NAT instead of both the Comcast Router and the Belkin Router, so I can disable the Routing functions of the Belkin and allow the Comcast Router to But if I disable the Routing functions of the Belkin device, the Guest WiFi network is still available. Is this configuration just as secure as when the Belkin acts as a Router? I guess the question comes down to this: Do Guest WiFi's provide security by 1) only allowing requests to IPs found in-front of the device, or do they work by 2) disallowing requests to IPs on the same subnet? 1) Would mean that Guest WiFi on an access point provides no benefit 2) Would mean that the Guest WiFi functionality can work even if the device is just an access point. Or maybe something else entirely?

  Read the article

• SFTP access without hassle

  - by enobayram

  I'm trying to provide access to a local folder for someone over the internet. After googling around a bit, I've come to the conclusion that SFTP is the safest thing to expose through the firewall to the chaotic and evil world of the Internet. I'm planning to use the openssh-server to this end. Even though I trust that openssh will stop a random attacker, I'm not so sure about the security of my computer once someone is connected through ssh. In particular, even if I don't give that person's user account any privileges whatsoever, he might just be able to "su" to, say, "nobody". And since I was never worried about such things before, I might have given some moderate privileges to nobody at some point (not sudo rights surely!). I would of course value your comments about giving privileges to nobody in the first place, but that's not the point, really. My aim is to give SFTP access to someone in such a sandboxed state that I shouldn't need to worry about such things (at least not more so than I should have done before). Is this really possible? Am I speaking nonsense or worried in vain?

  Read the article

• tftpd starts randomly

  - by Mutant

  A few days ago my Little Snitch filter starts popping up tftpd. I'd never seen this before, so I immediately start freaking out thinking my Mac has been compromised. I can't find anything unusual on the system. The process usually dies before I can trace it (little snitch never allowed the connection just left the popup up). I finally caught it once, and found this: [10:32]: sudo lsof -nlP | fgrep tftp Password: tftpd 1924 18446744 cwd DIR 1,3 1326 2 / tftpd 1924 18446744 txt REG 1,3 29856 163979456 /usr/libexec/tftpd tftpd 1924 18446744 txt REG 1,3 600576 163686622 /usr/lib/dyld tftpd 1924 18446744 txt REG 1,3 303300608 189014898 /private/var/db/dyld/dyld_shared_cache_x86_64 tftpd 1924 18446744 0u IPv4 0x34a76100fcbb06e3 0t0 UDP *:55818 tftpd 1924 18446744 2u IPv4 0x34a76100f1113c53 0t0 UDP *:69 [10:32]: ps ax | fgrep 1924 1924 ?? S 0:00.00 /usr/libexec/tftpd -i /private/tftpboot 1949 s000 S+ 0:00.00 fgrep 1924 For the life of me I can't figure out what is starting this. Nothing in cron, launchdaemons, etc. Google searches haven't yielded much either. The connection IP is different each time. So my question is: Has anyone seen anything like this before?

  Read the article

• How to disable Utility Manager (Windows Key + U)

  - by Skizz

  How do I disable the Windows + U hotkey in Windows XP? Alternatively, how do I stop the utility manager from being active? The two are related. The utilty manager is currently providing a potential security hole and I need to remove it[1]. The system I'm developing uses a custom Gina to log in and start a custom shell. This removes most Windows Key hotkeys but the Win + U still pops up the manager app. Update: Things I've tried and don't work: NoWinKeys registry setting - this only affects explorer hotkeys; Renaming utilman.exe - program reappears next login; Third party software - not really an option, these machines are audited by the clients and additional, third party software would be unlikely to be accepted. Also, the proedure needs to be reasonably straightforward - this has to be done by field service engineers to existing machines (machines currently in Russia, Holland, France, Spain, Ireland and USA). [1] The hole is via the internet options in the help viewer the utility app links to.

  Read the article

• How intrusive is using VPN?

  - by Slade

  My company lets us work from home sometimes using VPN (during weather emergencies and stuff). When logging in a big window comes up that says the network is private and for employees only and that there's no right to privacy while using VPN. It makes sense that they don't want people poking around their network but I wonder if the company can use the connection to look around my computer while I'm connected. I'm not entirely computer-illiterate but I'm not a networks person at all so the technical documents I've found don't help me. Is that possible, and if so to what degree? UPDATE Thanks Mark. The funneling thing is what I was really asking about. Mostly I was worried that I would already have some IM conversation open or log into eBay forgetting that the VPN was open and that my company IT people would see it or that they would log my eBay password. Thanks again. ANOTHER UPDATE What if my son wants to play online poker or Warcraft etcetera while I have VPN on to work? Can my company think I'm the one playing if I am not typing often?

  Read the article

• What can inexperienced admin expect after server setup completed seemingly fine? [closed]

  - by Miloshio

  Inexperienced person seems to have done everything fine so far. This is his very first time that he is the only one in charge for LAMP server. He has installed OS, network, Apache, PHP, MySQL, Proftpd, MTA & MDA software, configured VirtualHosts properly (facts because he calls himself admin), done user management and various configuration settings with respect to security recommendations and... everything is fine for now... For now. If you were directing horror movie for server admin above mentioned what would you make up for boogieman that showed up and started to pursue him? Omitting hardware disaster cases for which one cannot do anything 'from remote', what is the most common causes of server or part-of-server or server-related significant failure when managed by inexperienced admin? I have in mind something that is newbie admins very often missing which is leading to later intervention of someone with experience? May that be some uncontrolled CPU-eating leftover process, memory-related glitch, widely-used feature that messes up something unexpected on anything like that? Newbie admin for now only monitors disk-space and RAM usage, and number of running processes. He would appreciate any tips regarding what's probably going to happen to his server over time.

  Read the article

• Pull network or power? (for contianing a rooted server)

  - by Aleksandr Levchuk

  When a server gets rooted (e.g. a situation like this), one of the first things that you may decide to do is containment. Some security specialists advise not to enter remediation immediately and to keep the server online until forensics are completed. Those advises are usually for APT. It's different if you have occasional Script kiddie breaches. However, you may decide to remediate (fix things) early and one of the steps in remediation is containment of the server. Quoting from Robert Moir's Answer - "disconnect the victim from its muggers". A server can be contained by pulling the network cable or the power cable. Which method is better? Taking into consideration the need for: Protecting victims from further damage Executing successful forensics (Possibly) Protecting valuable data on the server Edit: 5 assumptions Assuming: You detected early: 24 hours. You want to recover early: 3 days of 1 systems admin on the job (forensics and recovery). The server is not a Virtual Machine or a Container able to take a snapshot capturing the contents of the servers memory. You decide not to attempt prosecuting. You suspect that the attacker may be using some form of software (possibly sophisticated) and this software is still running on the server.

  Read the article

• How to know who accessed a file or if a file has 'access' monitor in linux

  - by J L

  I'm a noob and have some questions about viewing who accessed a file. I found there are ways to see if a file was accessed (not modified/changed) through audit subsystem and inotify. However, from what I have read online, according to here: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-audit-files-to-see-who-made-changes-to-a-file.html it says to 'watch/monitor' file, I have to set a watch by using command like: # auditctl -w /etc/passwd -p war -k password-file So if I create a new file or directory, do I have to use audit/inotify command to 'set' watch first to 'watch' who accessed the new file? Also is there a way to know if a directory is being 'watched' through audit subsystem or inotify? How/where can I check the log of a file? edit: from further googling, I found this page saying: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man7/inotify.7.html The inotify API provides no information about the user or process that triggered the inotify event. So I guess this means that I cant figure out which user accessed a file? Only audit subsystem can be used to figure out who accessed a file?

  Read the article

• Watchguard Firebox "split" fibre optic line into 2 interfaces

  - by fRAiLtY-

  We have a requirement on our Watchguard Firebox XTM505 to be able to split our incoming external interface, in this case a fibre optic dedicated leased line, 100/100. We use the line in our office of approx 30 machines however we also re-sell to an external company who utilise it to provide wireless internet solutions to the public. The current infrastructure is as follows: Data in (Leased Line) - Juniper SRX210 managed by ISP - 1 cable out into unmanaged Netgear switch - 1 cable into our firewall and office network, 1 cable to our external providers core router managed by them. We have been informed that having the unmanaged switch in the position it is poses a security risk and that a good option would be to get our Watchguard Firewall to perform the split, by separating our office onto a trusted interface, and by "passing through" the external line to their managed router. It is alleged that the Watchguard is capable of doing this and also rate limiting the interfaces, i.e. 20mbps for the trusted interface and 80mbps for the "pass-through", however Watchguard technical support don't seem to be able to understand what we're trying to achieve. Can anyone provide any advice on whether this is possible on a Watchguard device and how or perhaps if there's a better way of achieving this, perhaps with a managed switch instead of unmanaged? Cheers

  Read the article

• What to do after a fresh Linux install in a production server?

  - by Rhyuk

  I havent had previous experience with the 'serious' IT scene. At work I've been handed a server that will host an application and MYSQL (I will install and configure everything), this will be a productive server. Soon I will be installing RHEL5 to it but I would like to know like, if you get a new production server, what would be the first 5 things you would do after you do a fresh Linux install? (configuration/security/reliability wise) EDIT: Added more information regarding the server enviroment and server roles: -The server will be inside my company's intranet/firewall. -The server will receive files (GBs) in binary code from another internal server. The application installed in this server is in charge of "translating" all that binary into human readable input. Server will get queried to get this information. -Only 2-3(max) users will be logging in. -(2) 145GB HDs in RAID1 for the OS and (2) 600GB HDs in RAID1 also for data. I mean, I know I may not get the perfect guideline. But at least something thats better than leaving everything on default.

  Read the article

• What is the risk of introducing non standard image machines to a corporate environment

  - by Troy Hunt

  I’m after some feedback from those in the managed desktop or network security space on the risks of introducing machines that are not built on a standard desktop image into a large corporate environment. This particular context relates to the standard corporate image (32 bit Win XP) in a large multi-national not being suitable for a particular segment of users. In short, I’m looking at what hurdles we might come across by proposing the introduction of machines which are built and maintained by a handful of software developers and not based on the corporate desktop image (proposing 64 bit Win 7). I suspect the barriers are primarily around virus definition updates, the rollout of service packs and patches and the compatibility of existing applications with the newer OS. In terms of viruses and software updates, if machines were using common virus protection software with automated updates and using Windows Update for service packs and patches, is there still a viable risk to the corporate environment? For that matter, are large corporate environments normally vulnerable to the introduction of a machine not based on a standard image? I’m trying to get my head around how real the risk of infection and other adverse events are from machines being plugged into the network. There are multiple scenarios outside of just the example above where this might happen (i.e. a vendor plugging in a machine for internet access during a presentation). Would a large corporate network normally be sufficiently hardened against such innocuous activity? I appreciate the theory as to why policies such as standard desktop images exist, I’m just interested in the actual, practical risk and how much a network should be protected by means other than what is managed on individual PCs.

  Read the article

• Need a helpful/managed VPS to help transition from shared hosting

  - by Xeoncross

  I am looking for a VPS that can help me transition out of a shared hosting environment. My main OS is Ubuntu, although I am still new to the linux world. I spend most of my day programming PHP applications using a git over SSH workflow. I want PHP, SSH, git, MySQL/PostgreSQL and Apache to work well. Someday after I figure out server management I'll move on to http://nginx.org/ or something. I don't really understand 1) linux firewalls, 2) mail servers, or 3) proper daily package/lib update flow. I need a host that can help with these so I don't get hit with a security hole. (I monitor apache access logs so I think I can take it from there.) I want to know if there is a sub $50/m VPS that can help me learn (or do for me) these three main things I need to run a server. I can't leave my shared hosts (plural shows my need!) until I am sure my sites will be safe despite my incompetence. To clarify again, I need the most helpful, supportive, walk-me-through, check-up-on-me, be-there-when-I-need you VPS I can get. Learning isn't a problem when there is someone to turn too. ;)

  Read the article

• UNC shared path not accessible though necessary permissions are set

  - by Vysakh

  I have 2 environments A and B. A is an original environment whereas B is a clone of A, exactly except AD servers. AD server of B has been assigned a trust relationship with A, so that all the service and user accounts of A can be used in B too. And trusting works fine, perfect!! But I encounter some issues accessing UNC paths(\server2\shared) with these service accounts. I had a check in A environment and all the permissions set in that environment is done in B too (already set since it is a clone of A),but the issue is with B environment only. And FYI, the user is an owner of that folder in both the environments. I tried creating a folder inside the share(\server2\shared) using command prompt, but failed with error "access denied". What I done a workaround is that I added that user in "security" tab of folder permissions and after that it worked fine. But this was not done in the original environment. Is this something related to trust relationship? Why the share to the same location for the same user works differently in 2 environments, though they've been set with the same permissions. FYI, these are windows 2003 servers. Can someone please help.

  Read the article

• How do I set up Tomcat 7's server.xml to access a network share with an different url?

  - by jneff

  I have Apache Tomcat 7.0 installed on a Windows 2008 R2 Server. Tomcat has access to a share '\server\share' that has a documents folder that I want to access using '/foo/Documents' in my web application. My application is able to access the documents when I set the file path to '//server/share/documents/doc1.doc'. I don't want the file server's path to be exposed on my link to the file in my application. I want to be able to set the path to '/foo/Documents/doc1.doc'. In http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/ehchua/programming/howto/Tomcat_More.html under 'Setting the Context Root Directory and Request URL of a Webapp' item number two says that I can rename the path by putting in a context to the server.xml file. So I put <Host name="localhost" appBase="webapps" unpackWARs="true" autoDeploy="true"> <!-- SingleSignOn valve, share authentication between web applications Documentation at: /docs/config/valve.html --> <!-- <Valve className="org.apache.catalina.authenticator.SingleSignOn" /> --> <!-- Access log processes all example. Documentation at: /docs/config/valve.html Note: The pattern used is equivalent to using pattern="common" --> <Valve className="org.apache.catalina.valves.AccessLogValve" directory="logs" prefix="localhost_access_log." suffix=".txt" pattern="%h %l %u %t &quot;%r&quot; %s %b" /> <Context path="/foo" docBase="//server/share" reloadable="false"></Context> </Host> The context at the bottum was added. Then I tried to pull the file using '/foo/Documents/doc1.doc' and it didn't work. What do I need to do to get it to work correctly? Should I be using an alias instead? Are there other security issues that this may cause?

  Read the article

• securing communication between 2 Linux servers on local network for ports only they need access to

  - by gkdsp

  I have two Linux servers connected to each other via a cross-connect cable, forming a local network. One of the servers presents a DMZ for the other server (e.g. database server) that must be very secure. I'm restricting this question to communication between the two servers for ports that only need to be available to these servers (and no one else). Thus, communication between the two servers can be established by: (1) opening the required port(s) on both servers, and authenticating according to the applications' rules. (2) disabling IP Tables associated with the NIC cards the cross-connect cable is attached to (on both servers). Which method is more secure? In the first case, the needed ports are open to the external world, but protected by user name and password. In the second case, none of the needed ports are open to the outside world, but since the IP Tables are disabled for the NIC cards associated with the cross-connect cables, essentially all of the ports may be considered to be "open" between the two servers (and so if the server creating the DMZ is compromized, the hacker on the DMZ server could view all ports open using the cross-connect cable). Any conventional wisdom how to make the communication secure between two servers for ports only these servers need access to?

  Read the article

• Preventing back connect in Cpanel servers

  - by Fernando

  We run a Cpanel server and someone gained access to almost all accounts using the following steps: 1) Gained access to an user account due to weak password. Note: this user didn't had shell access. 2) With this user account, he accessed Cpanel and added a cron task. The cron task was a perl script that connected to his IP and he was able to send back shell commands. 3) Having a non jailed shell, he was able to change content of most websites in server specially for users who set their folders to 777 ( Unfortunately a common recommendation and sometimes a requirement for some PHP softwares ). Is there a way to prevent this? We started by disabling cron in Cpanel interface, but this is not enough. I see a lot of other options in which an user could run this perl script. We have a firewall running and blocking uncommon outgoing ports. But he used port 80 and, well, I can't block this port as a lot of processes use them to access things, even Cpanel itself.

  Read the article

• Port 80 not accessible Amazon ec2

  - by Jasper

  I have started a Amazon EC2 instance (Linux Redhat)... And Apache as well. But when i try: http://MyPublicHostName I get no response. I have ensured that my Security Group allows access to port 80. I can reach port 22 for sure, as i am logged into the instance via ssh. Within the Amazon EC2 Linux Instance when i do: $ wget http://localhost i do get a response. This confirms Apache and port 80 is indeed running fine. Since Amazon starts instances in VPC, do i have to do anything there... Infact i cannot even ping the instance, although i can ssh to it! Any advice? EDIT: Note that i had edited /etc/hosts file earlier to make 389-ds (ldap) installation work. My /etc/hosts file looks like this(IP addresses as shown as w.x.y.z ) 127.0.0.1   localhost.localdomain localhost w.x.y.z   ip-w-x-y-z.us-west-1.compute.internal w.x.y.z   ip-w-x-y-z.localdomain

  Read the article

• Why is /dev/urandom only readable by root since Ubuntu 12.04 and how can I "fix" it?

  - by Joe Hopfgartner

  I used to work with Ubuntu 10.04 templates on a lot of servers. Since changing to 12.04 I have problems that I've now isolated. The /dev/urandom device is only accessible to root. This caused SSL engines, at least in PHP, for example file_get_contents(https://... to fail. It also broke redmine. After a chmod 644 it works fine, but that doesnt stay upon reboot. So my question. why is this? I see no security risk because... i mean.. wanna steal some random data? How can I "fix" it? The servers are isolated and used by only one application, thats why I use openvz. I think about something like a runlevel script or so... but how do I do it efficiently? Maby with dpkg or apt? The same goes vor /dev/shm. in this case i totally understand why its not accessible, but I assume I can "fix" it the same way to fix /dev/urandom

  Read the article

• Can't reach server without proxy (website down from my home)

  - by user2128576

  I have a website hosted on Hostinger However I am experiencing problems with my wordpress site. This is really annoying. If I understood the situation right, The server is blocking me or denying access to my own website. When I visit the site with google chrome, it returns: Oops! Google Chrome could not find Same thing happens to firefox! Firefox can't find the server but when I do a check if my site is online and working through http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ it says that the site is working and up. Another thing, I access the website through a proxy, both on chrome and in firefox, and t works. Why is this? I have also recently installed the plugin Better Wp Security 5 days ago. Could the plugin have caused it? but I don't remember setting any IP's to be blocked. Also, this happens at random times, sometimes I can access it, sometimes it fails to reach the server. I am currently developing the site live. Was I blocked by the server for frequently refreshing the page? (duh, I'm a developer and I need to refresh to see changes.) or is this a problem with my ISP's DNS server? How can I resolve? and what are the possible fixes? Thanks in advance! -Jomar

  Read the article

• Agile web development with rails

  - by Steve

  Hi.. This code is from the agile web development with rails book.. I don't understand this part of the code... User is a model which has name,hashed_password,salt as its fields. But in the code they are mentioning about password and password confirmation, while there are no such fields in the model. Model has only hashed_password. I am sure mistake is with me. Please clear this for me :) User Model has name,hashed_password,salt. All the fields are strings require 'digest/sha1' class User < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :name validates_uniqueness_of :name attr_accessor :password_confirmation validates_confirmation_of :password validate :password_non_blank def self.authenticate(name, password) user = self.find_by_name(name) if user expected_password = encrypted_password(password, user.salt) if user.hashed_password != expected_password user = nil end end user end def password @password end def password=(pwd) @password = pwd return if pwd.blank? create_new_salt self.hashed_password = User.encrypted_password(self.password, self.salt) end private def password_non_blank errors.add(:password,"Missing password")if hashed_password.blank? end def create_new_salt self.salt = self.object_id.to_s + rand.to_s end def self.encrypted_password(password, salt) string_to_hash = password + "wibble" + salt Digest::SHA1.hexdigest(string_to_hash) end end

  Read the article

• Sed: regular expression match lines without <!--

  - by sixtyfootersdude

  I have a sed command to comment out xml commands sed 's/^\([ \t]*\)\(.*[0-9a-zA-Z<].*\)$/\1<!-- Security: \2 -->/' web.xml Takes: <a> <!-- Comment --> <b> bla </b> </a> Produces: <!-- Security: <a> --> <!-- Security: <!-- Comment --> --> // NOTE: there are two end comments. <!-- Security: <b> --> <!-- Security: bla --> <!-- Security: </b> --> <!-- Security: </a> --> Ideally I would like to not use my sed script to comment things that are already commented. Ie: <!-- Security: <a> --> <!-- Comment --> <!-- Security: <b> --> <!-- Security: bla --> <!-- Security: </b> --> <!-- Security: </a> --> I could do something like this: sed 's/^\([ \t]*\)\(.*[0-9a-zA-Z<].*\)$/\1<!-- Security: \2 -->/' web.xml sed 's/^[ \t]*<!-- Security: \(<!--.*-->\) -->/\1/' web.xml but I think a one liner is cleaner (?) This is pretty similar: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/436850/matching-a-line-that-doesnt-contain-specific-text-with-regular-expressions

  Read the article

• Our VPS is being used as a Warez mule

  - by Mikuso

  The company I work for runs a series of ecommerce stores on a VPS. It's a WAMP stack, 50gb storage. We use an archaic piece of ecommerce software which operates almost entirely client-side. When an order is taken, it writes it to disk and then we schedule a task to download the orders once every 10 minutes. A few days ago, we ran out of disk space, which caused orders to fail to be written. I quickly hopped on to delete some old logs from the mailserver and freed up a couple of GB pretty quickly, but I wondered how we could fill up 50gb will nothing much more than logs. Turns out, we didn't. Hidden deep within the c:\System Volume Information directory, we have a stack of pirated videos, which seem to have appeared (looking at the timestamps) over the past three weeks. Porn, American Sports, Australian cooking shows. A very odd collection. Doesn't look like an individual's personal tastes - more like the VPS is being used as a mule. We have a 5-attempts and you're blocked policy on our FTP server (plus, there is no FTP account with access to that directory), and the windows user account has had it's password changed recently. The main avenues are sealed - and logs can verify that. I thought I'd watch and see if it happened again, and yes, another cooking show has appeared this morning. I am the only one to know of this problem at my company, and only one of two with access to the VPS (the other being my boss, but no - it's not him). So how is this happening? Is there a vulnerability in some of the software on the VPS? Are the VPS owners peddling warez across our rented space? (can they do this?) I don't want to delete the warez in case it is seen as a hostile action against this outside force, and they choose to retaliate. What should I do? How do I troubleshoot this? Has this happened to anyone else before?

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2003 W3SVC Failing, Brute Force attack possibly the cause

  - by Roaders

  This week my website has disappeared twice for no apparent reason. I logged onto my server (Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2) and restarted the World Web Publishing service, website still down. I tried restarting a few other services like DNS and Cold Fusion and the website was still down. In the end I restarted the server and the website reappeared. Last night the website went down again. This time I logged on and looked at the event log. SCARY STUFF! There were hundreds of these: Event Type: Information Event Source: TermService Event Category: None Event ID: 1012 Date: 30/01/2012 Time: 15:25:12 User: N/A Computer: SERVER51338 Description: Remote session from client name a exceeded the maximum allowed failed logon attempts. The session was forcibly terminated. At a frequency of around 3 -5 a minute. At about the time my website died there was one of these: Event Type: Information Event Source: W3SVC Event Category: None Event ID: 1074 Date: 30/01/2012 Time: 19:36:14 User: N/A Computer: SERVER51338 Description: A worker process with process id of '6308' serving application pool 'DefaultAppPool' has requested a recycle because the worker process reached its allowed processing time limit. Which is obviously what killed the web service. There were then a few of these: Event Type: Error Event Source: TermDD Event Category: None Event ID: 50 Date: 30/01/2012 Time: 20:32:51 User: N/A Computer: SERVER51338 Description: The RDP protocol component "DATA ENCRYPTION" detected an error in the protocol stream and has disconnected the client. Data: 0000: 00 00 04 00 02 00 52 00 ......R. 0008: 00 00 00 00 32 00 0a c0 ....2..À 0010: 00 00 00 00 32 00 0a c0 ....2..À 0018: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........ 0020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ........ 0028: 92 01 00 00 ... With no more of the first error type. I am concerned that someone is trying to brute force their way into my server. I have disabled all the accounts apart from the IIS ones and Administrator (which I have renamed). I have also changed the password to an even more secure one. I don't know why this brute force attack caused the webservice to stop and I don't know why restarting the service didn't fix the problem. What should I do to make sure my server is secure and what should I do to make sure the webserver doesn't go down any more? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Good maintained privacy Add-On/settings set that takes usability into account?

  - by Foo Bar

  For some weeks I've been trying to find a good set of Firefox Addons that give me a good portion of privacy/security without losing to much of usability. But I can't seem to find a nice combination of add-ons/settings that I'm happy with. Here's what I tried, together with the pros and cons that I discovered: HTTPS Everywhere: Has only pro's: just install and be happy (no interaction needed), loads known pages SLL-encrypted, is updated fairly often NoScript - Fine, but needs a lot of fine-tuning, often maintained, mainly blocks all non-HTML/CSS Content, but the author sometimes seems to do "untrustworthy" decission RequestPolicy - seems dead (last activity 6 months ago, has some annoying bugs, official support mail address is dead), but the purpose of this is really great: gives you full control over cross-site requests: blocks by default, let's you add sites to a whitelist, once this is done it works interaction-less in the background AdBlock Edge: blocks specific cross-site requests from a pre-defined whitelist (can never be fully sure, need to trust others) Disconnect: like AdBlock Edge, just looking different, has no interaction possibilities (can never be fully sure, need to trust others, can not interact even if I wanted to) Firefox own Cookie Managment (block by default, whitelist specific sites), after building own whitelist it does it's work in the background and I have full control All These addons together basically block everything unsecure. But there are a lot of redundancies: NoScript has a mixed-content blocker, but FF has it's own for a while now. Also the Cookie blocker from NoScript is reduntant to my FF-Cookie setting. NoScript also has an XSS-blocker, which is redundant to RequestPolicy. Disconnect and AdBlock are extremly redundant, but not fully. And there are some bugs (especially RequestPolicy). And RequestPolicy seems to be dead. All in all, this list is great but has these heavy drawbacks. My favourite set would be "NoScript Light" (only script blocking, without all the additonal redundant-to-other-addons hick-hack it does) + HTTPS Everywhere + RequestPolicy-clone (maintained, less buggy), because RequestPolicy makes all other "site-blockers" obsolete (because it blocks everything by default and let's me create a whitelist). But since RequestPolicy is buggy and seems to be dead I have to fallback to AdBlock Edge and Disconnect, which don't block all and and need more maintaining (whitelist updates, trust-check). Are there addons that fulfill my wishes?

  Read the article

• a couple of questions about proxy server,vpn & how they works

  - by Q8Y

  I have a couple of questions that are related to security. Correct me if i'm wrong :) If I want to request something (ex: visiting www.google.com): my computer will request that then it will to the ISP then to my ISP proxy server that will take the request and act as a middle man in this situation ask for the site (www.google.com) and retrieve it then the proxy will send it back to me. I know that its being done like that. So, my question is that, in this situation my ISP knows everything and what I did request, and the proxy server is set by default (when I ask for an internet subscription). So, if I use here another proxy (lets assume that is a highly anonymous and my ISP can't detect my IP address from it), would I visit my ISP and then from my ISP it will redirect me to the new proxy server that I provide? Will it know that there is someone using another proxy? Or will it go to another network rather than my ISP? Because I didn't get the view clearly. This question is related to the first one. When I use a VPN, I know that VPN provides for me a tunneling, encryption and much more features that a proxy can't. So my data is travelling securely and my ISP can't know what I'm doing. But my questions are: From where is the tunneling started? Does it start after I visit the ISP network (since they are the one that are responsible for forwarding my data and requests)? If so, then not all my connection is tunneled in this way, there is a part that is not being tunneled. Since, every time I need to do anything I have to go to my ISP and ask to do that. Correct me if I misunderstand this. I know that VPN can let my computer be virtually in another place and access its resources (ex: be like in my office while I'm in my home. This is done via VPN). If I use a VPN service provider so that I can access the internet securely and without being monitored by my ISP. In this case, where is my encrypted data saved? Is it saved in my ISP or in the VPN service provider? If I use a VPN, does anyone on the internet know what I'm doing or who I am? Even the VPN service provider? Can they know me? I think they should know the person that is asking for this VPN service, am I right?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166  | Next Page >