Search Results

Search found 13222 results on 529 pages for 'security gate'.

Page 17/529 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Why is autologon in Windows 7 a security risk

    - by Phenom
    If I set my Windows 7 account to automatically logon so I don't have to type a password, and I don't have to click my username on the logon screen, I heard it's a security risk. From Windows 7 Auto Login: Although I don’t personally recommend this, there are some people out there who don’t want to bother with using a password to protect their Windows user account. Of course, using a password in Windows isn’t required, only suggested. But even if you don’t fill one in, you still have to click your user icon to start the login process. An easier way - although again much less secure - is to enable auto-logins for your Windows PC. This is possible in Windows 7, as it was in prior versions, but it takes a little finagling to do so. (And for good reason, darn it.) What is risky about it besides people being able to logon locally? Does it make it easier for hackers to logon remoately?

    Read the article

  • Running PHP scripts as the owner of the PHP file: security issues

    - by thomasrutter
    I'm using suexec to ensure that PHP scripts (and other CGI/FastCGI apps) are run as the account holder associated with the relevant virtual host. This allows for securing each users' scripts from reading/writing by other users. However, it occurs to me that this opens up a different security hole. Previously, the web server ran as an unprivileged user, with read-only access to user's files (unless the user changed the file permissions for some reason). Now, the web user can also write to user's files. So while I've prevented different users taking advantage of each other's scripts, I've made it so that in the event that some application has a remote code injection vulnerability, it now has not only read access but also write access to all that user's scripts and website. How can I deal with this? One idea I've had is to create a second user account for each user account in the system, so that each user has their own user account, and all their scripts are run under another user account. But that seems cumbersome.

    Read the article

  • Security issues of running PHP scripts as the owner of the PHP file with suexec

    - by thomasrutter
    I'm using suexec to ensure that PHP scripts (and other CGI/FastCGI apps) are run as the account holder associated with the relevant virtual host. This allows for securing each users' scripts from reading/writing by other users. However, it occurs to me that this opens up a different security hole. Previously, the web server ran as an unprivileged user, with read-only access to user's files (unless the user changed the file permissions for some reason). Now, the web server can also write to user's files. So while I've prevented different users taking advantage of each other's scripts, I've made it so that in the event that some application has a remote code injection vulnerability, it now has not only read access but also write access to all that user's scripts and website. How can I deal with this? One idea I've had is to create a second user account for each user account in the system, so that each user has their own user account, and all their scripts are run under another user account. But that seems cumbersome.

    Read the article

  • Chrome - SSL Security issue on Windows platforms?

    - by al nik
    Fortify.net is a service that displays what's the currently encryption key used by your browser in a https connection. If I browse this site with Chrome 4.1.249.1042 in WinXp SP3 the key used is RC4 cipher, 128-bit key This encryption is weak, and it's the one used by old browsers like IE6. Chrome works fine on Fedora9 and it uses AES cipher, 256-bit key as more modern browsers do (i.e.Firefox) I consider this a security issue. I'm considering to switch back to Firefox in Windows. Do you know if it's possible to change the default encryption key in Chrome?

    Read the article

  • Apache security for multi-user development web server.

    - by mrmartinblue
    I've been searching and reading through documents all morning and understand that I need to use some combination of chown and probably 'jailing' to securely give programmers access to directories on my centos webserver. Here's the situation: I have an apache web server that has any number of virtual sites located in /var/www/site1 /var/www/site2 etc.. I have different developers that need full access both ssh and vsFTP to only the site they are working on. What is the best way to create and maintain security in this scenario. My thought would be to create a new user for each coder, jail that user to the website directory they are allowed to work in, add their user to a group and set the webroot's owner to that group. Any thoughts? Good, bad, ugly? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Set security on pattern of sub folders (Server 2003)

    - by Mark Major
    I have a folder structure similar to the one shown below these paragraphs. How do I change security on every 'Photos' folder without clicking through each individually in Windows Explorer? There are about 50 top level folders (Bob, Jim, Eva, etc, etc) which have the same layout of folders inside. I am keen for any suggestions, either scripting or GUI. I am on Windows Server 2003. Cheap/free method would be good, as the company is part of a registered charity. Ideally I would like to do this via DFS path. E.G. \\mycompany.local\Shared\Staff\Bob\ Thanks for reading. Thanks for any info. Mark Bob Review Profile Photos Jim Review Profile Photos Eva Review Profile Photos

    Read the article

  • Security measures for CentOS

    - by cappuccinodrinker
    I have been tightening up my web server security and wanted to know what else I can do. I am running CentOS 5 with these measures: - All passwords to FTP, MySQL etc are generated from grc.com/passwords.htm and microsoft.com/protect/fraud/passwords/create.aspx (for the ones which cannot be too long). - Running iptables with all ports shut off except for http mail and smtp, the important ports like FTP SSH are blocked to all except my static office IP. There is also no response to pings. - Rootkit Hunter running daily - The server is PCI compliant according to Comodo - Not running any crappy made php apps, we use Zend Framework for our stuff and do have kayako installed and keep them up to date. Can't really think of anything else I can do... I could implement a brute force measure, but I think I already have by simply changing my SSH port to a number above 10000 and blocking it off with iptables.

    Read the article

  • Editing the Microsoft Security Essentials context-menu

    - by GPX
    As all MSE users would know, the context-menu item that it adds to Explorer is really long, with one whole sentence "Scan with Microsoft Security Essentials...". Is there a way to edit this and shorten it? I figured out the the file shellext.dll is responsible for registering the context menu. I used ResEdit to edit the DLL and changed the string table entry from Scan with ($BrandName) to Scan with MSE. But it still won't change. I've also tried de-registering the DLL and then registering it again. No luck! Any ideas? Or am I doing something wrong?

    Read the article

  • Linux Security/Sysadmin Courses in London?

    - by mister k
    Hi, My employer has offered to send me on a couple of training courses and I'm just looking for some recommendations. I'm mainly looking to improve my security and general sysadmin skills. I would like to do something focused on UNIX as I mainly work with Linux boxes (but also a couple of FreeBSD boxes). I don't want to do a study-from-home course, so I would need to find somewhere based in London. It would be great to hear from anyone who has some experience with this kind of course. The courses I've found so far are: www.learningtree.co.uk/courses/uk433.htm www.city.ac.uk/cae/cfa/computing/systems_it/linux.html www.city.ac.uk/cae/cfa/computing/systems_it/unix_tools_ss.html I'm not sure the City University courses are advanced enough as I already have experience... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Security considerations for my first eStore.

    - by Rohit
    I have a website through which I am going to sell few products. It is hosted on a simple shared-hosting and does not have SSL. On the products page, each product has a Buy Now button created from my PayPal Merchant account. PayPal recommends to use it's Button Factory to create secure buttons and save it inside PayPal itself. I have followed the same advice and the code of any button is secure and does not disclose any information on either a product or it's price. When the user clicks on a Buy Now button, he/she is taken to PayPal site where a page is opened in SSL for the user to fill in the credit card and shipping details. After a successful transaction, the control is passed back to my site. I want to know whether there is still any chance when security could be compromised.

    Read the article

  • Security considerations in providing VPN access to non-company issued computers [migrated]

    - by DKNUCKLES
    There have been a few people at my office that have requested the installation of DropBox on their computers to synchronize files so they can work on them at home. I have always been wary about cloud computing, mainly because we are a Canadian company and enjoy the privacy and being outside the reach of the Patriot Act. The policy before I started was that employees with company issued notebooks could be issued a VPN account, and everyone else had to have a remote desktop connection. The theory behind this logic (as I understand it) was that we had the potential to lock down the notebooks whereas the employees home computers were outside of our grasp. We had no ability to ensure they weren't running as administrator all the time / were running AV so they were a higher risk at being infected with malware and could compromise network security. With the increase in people wanting DropBox I'm curious as to whether or not this policy is too restrictive and overly paranoid. Is it generally safe to provide VPN access to an employee without knowing what their computing environment looks like?

    Read the article

  • Security and the Mobile Workforce

    - by tobyehatch
    Now that many organizations are moving to the BYOD philosophy (bring your own devices), security for phones and tablets accessing company sensitive information is of paramount importance. I had the pleasure to interview Brian MacDonald, Principal Product Manager for Oracle Business Intelligence (BI) Mobile Products, about this subject, and he shared some wonderful insight about how the Oracle Mobile Security Tool Kit is addressing mobile security and doing some pretty cool things.  With the rapid proliferation of phones and tablets, there is a perception that mobile devices are a security threat to corporate IT, that mobile operating systems are not secure, and that there are simply too many ways to inadvertently provide access to critical analytic data outside the firewall. Every day, I see employees working on mobile devices at the airport, while waiting for their airplanes, and using public WIFI connections at coffee houses and in restaurants. These methods are not typically secure ways to access confidential company data. I asked Brian to explain why. “The native controls for mobile devices and applications are indeed insufficiently secure for corporate deployments of Business Intelligence and most certainly for businesses where data is extremely critical - such as financial services or defense - although it really applies across the board. The traditional approach for accessing data from outside a firewall is using a VPN connection which is not a viable solution for mobile. The problem is that once you open up a VPN connection on your phone or tablet, you are creating an opening for the whole device, for all the software and installed applications. Often the VPN connection by itself provides insufficient encryption – if any – which means that data can be potentially intercepted.” For this reason, most organizations that deploy Business Intelligence data via mobile devices will only do so with some additional level of control. So, how has the industry responded? What are companies doing to address this very real threat? Brian explained that “Mobile Device Management (MDM) and Mobile Application Management (MAM) software vendors have rapidly created solutions for mobile devices that provide a vast array of services for controlling, managing and establishing enterprise mobile usage policies. On the device front, vendors now support full levels of encryption behind the firewall, encrypted local data storage, credential management such as federated single-sign-on as well as remote wipe, geo-fencing and other risk reducing features (should a device be lost or stolen). More importantly, these software vendors have created methods for providing these capabilities on a per application basis, allowing for complete isolation of the application from the mobile operating system. Finally, there are tools which allow the applications themselves to be distributed through enterprise application stores allowing IT organizations to manage who has access to the apps, when updates to the applications will happen, and revoke access after an employee leaves. So even though an employee may be using a personal device, access to company data can be controlled while on or near the company premises. So do the Oracle BI mobile products integrate with the MDM and MAM vendors? Brian explained that our customers use a wide variety of mobile security vendors and may even have more than one in-house. Therefore, Oracle is ensuring that users have a choice and a mechanism for linking together Oracle’s BI offering with their chosen vendor’s secure technology. The Oracle BI Mobile Security Toolkit, which is a version of the Oracle BI Mobile HD application, delivered through the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) in its component parts, helps Oracle users to build their own version of the Mobile HD application, sign it with their own enterprise development certificates, link with their security vendor of choice, then deploy the combined application through whichever means they feel most appropriate, including enterprise application stores.  Brian further explained that Oracle currently supports most of the major mobile security vendors, has close relationships with each, and maintains strong partnerships enabling both Oracle and the vendors to test, update and release a cooperating solution in lock-step. Oracle also ensures that as new versions of the Oracle HD application are made available on the Apple iTunes store, the same version is also immediately made available through the Security Toolkit on OTN.  Rest assured that as our workforce continues down the mobile path, company sensitive information can be secured.  To listen to the entire podcast, click here. To learn more about the Oracle BI Mobile HD, click  here To learn more about the BI Mobile Security Toolkit, click here 

    Read the article

  • Mac Management and Security

    - by Bart Silverstrim
    I was going through some literature on managing OS X laptops and asked someone some questions about usage scenarios when using the MacBooks. I asked someone more knowledgeable than I about whether it was possible for my Mac to be taken over if I were visiting another site for a conference or if I went on a wifi network at a local coffee house with policies from an OS X Server with workgroup manager (either legit for the site or someone running a version of OS X Server on hardware they have hidden somewhere on the network), which apparently could be set up to do things like limit my access to Finder or impose other neat whiz-bang management features. He said that it is indeed possible for it to happen as it would be assigned via the DHCP server and the OS X server would assume my Mac is a guest and could hand out restrictions and apparently my Mac will happily accept them without notifying me or giving me an option, unlike Windows which I believe would need to be joined to a domain before it becomes "managed" by Active Directory. So my question is as network admins and sysadmins with users traveling with MacBooks, is there a way to reasonably protect your users from having their machines hijacked without resorting to just turning off networking all the time? Or isn't this much of a security hazard? What threat does this pose to the road warriors in your businesses?

    Read the article

  • Online Storage and security concerns

    - by Megge
    I plan to set up a small fileserver. I already own a small server at HostEurope (VirtualServer L, 250GB space), but they don't offer enough space (there is the HostEurope Cloud, but paying for bandwidth isn't an option here, video-streaming should be possible) Requirements summarized: Storage: 2TB, Users: ~15, Filesizes: < 100GB, should be easily reachable (Mount as a networkdrive or at least have solid "communication" software) My first question would be: Where can I get halfway affordable online storages? And how should I connect them to my server? Getting an additional server is a bit overkill, as I know no hoster which allows 2 TB on a small 2 Ghz Dual Core 2 GB RAM thingy (that would be enough by far, I just need much space), and connecting it via NFS or FTP over Internet seems a bit strange and cripples performance. Do you have any advice where I could get that storage service from? (I sent HostEurope a custom request today, but they didn't answer till now. If they can provide me with that space, this question will be irrelevant, but the 2nd one is the more important one anway, don't do much more than recommend me some based on experience, you don't have to crawl hours through hosting services) livedrive for example offers 5 TB for 17€ / month, I'd be happy with 2 TB for 20 €, the caveat is: It doesn't allow multiple users, which leads me to my second question: Where are the security problems? Which protocol is sufficient (I want private and "public" folders etc. the usual "every user has its own and a public space"-thing), secure and fast? (I'd tend to (S)FTP, problem with FTP is: Most of those hosting services don't even allow FTP with mutliple users and single users lead me into "hacking" a solution (you could map the basic folder structure on the main server and just mount every subfolder from the storage, things get difficult with a public folder with 644 permissions though) Is useing something like PKI or 802.1X overkill for private uses?

    Read the article

  • Managing Apache to Compensate for WebDAV's Security Masking

    - by Tohuw
    When a user creates a file via WebDAV, the default behavior is that the file is owned by the user and group running the Apache process, with a umask of 022. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible for unprivileged users to write to the files by other means without being a member of the group Apache runs under (which strikes me as a particularly bad idea). My current solution is to set umask 000 in Apache's envvars and remove all world permissions from the webdav parent directory for the user. So, if the WebDAV share is /home/foo/www, then /home/foo/www is owned by www-data:foo with permissions of 770. This keeps other unprivileged users out, more or less, but it's hokey at best and a security disaster awaiting at worst. From my research and poking around at mod_dav and Apache, I cannot find a reasonable solution short of a cron job flipping all the permissions back (I'd rather not have the load and increased complexity on the server). SuExec won't work, either, because WebDAV operations are not going to execute as a different user. Any thoughts on this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Mac Management Without Permission and Security

    - by Bart Silverstrim
    I was going through some literature on managing OS X laptops and asked someone some questions about usage scenarios when using the MacBooks. I asked someone more knowledgeable than I about whether it was possible for my Mac to be taken over if I were visiting another site for a conference or if I went on a wifi network at a local coffee house with policies from an OS X Server with workgroup manager (either legit for the site or someone running a version of OS X Server on hardware they have hidden somewhere on the network), which apparently could be set up to do things like limit my access to Finder or impose other neat whiz-bang management features. He said that it is indeed possible for it to happen as it would be assigned via the DHCP server and the OS X server would assume my Mac is a guest and could hand out restrictions and apparently my Mac will happily accept them without notifying me or giving me an option, unlike Windows which I believe would need to be joined to a domain before it becomes "managed" by Active Directory. So my question is as network admins and sysadmins with users traveling with MacBooks, is there a way to reasonably protect your users from having their machines hijacked without resorting to just turning off networking all the time? Or isn't this much of a security hazard? What threat does this pose to the road warriors in your businesses?

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Security Essentials & MsMpEng.exe hogging resources

    - by Mike
    I've been using MSE for a couple months now, never had a single problem. All of a sudden the process "MsMpEng.exe" will randomly go crazy and hog all my system resources so I can't do anything unless I kill it in the task manager. (I've quit the program for now and my comp is running smooth). When I restart the program, reboot, whatever, it goes off and hogs all the resources again after a couple minutes. If I kill the process it will go away and then come back a couple minutes later and do the same thing. I've scanned with MSE, another antivirus and malware with no probs. Any ideas? Should I uninstall and find something else? The thing is I've liked it so far. I'm running Win7 64-bit. Also, I'm not running any other conflicting security programs. This is the only one on my PC right now. Windows Defender is also off.

    Read the article

  • Resources for Smartphone Security

    - by Shial
    My organization is currently working on improving our data and network security due to increasing HIPAA laws and a general need to get a better grasp on controlling our health related information. We are a non-profit working with people with developmental disabilities so we handle a lot of medical related information. One area that has been identified as a risk is our use of smartphones, specifically at this time Windows Mobile 6.1 devices from T-Mobile. We do not utilize the VPNs on the phones so there isn't any way they can access our databases or file servers (username/password for VPNs is not the domain logons). What would be exposed however is the particular user's email account since you could extract out the username/password and access the email either on the device or on our web email (Exchange 2003) which could contain HIPAA protected confidential information about clients and services and this would be an incident that would have to be reported. What resources or ideas would help us secure these devices? I'm not worried about data interception (using SSL) but more about physical theft or loss of the device. Are there websites that I just have not found with guidelines and suggestions or particualar products that would help protect us? I also don't want to limit the discussion to windows Mobile either. I myself am looking at an android 2.0 device and there is always the eventual possibility we could get pushed to enable the VPNs. I know this is a subject that likely won't have any particular correct answer and it is something we should all be aware of since there devices are sitting outside of our immediate control most of the time.

    Read the article

  • Can I disable this Windows (XP) Security Warning?

    - by FumbleFingers
    I recently reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows XP (I know I'll have to take the plunge and commit to Win8 "real soon, now", but I'm just not quite ready for the upheaval yet! :) I used to use WinRar (and later, when I got fed up with the "nag" messages, 7-Zip), but I haven't installed either of them in my new configuration, so I must be using the built-in XP facility when I open *.zip files. For years, I've been opening downloaded *.zip archives, and using "drag & drop" to copy to a File Explorer window open on the folder where I want the files to end up (usually, My Documents\Downloads). But now I find that when I "drop" the file(s), I get a pop-up Windows Security Warning saying Are you sure you want to copy or move files to this folder? You should only move or copy files from locations that you trust Can anyone explain why I'm getting this message, and is there any (reasonably easy, please! :) way to suppress it? Since I've already put the *.zip file on my computer, it seems a bit late to ask if I trust it. (Thus far, the files in question have always been plain text, so it's not a matter of dodgy programs, etc.) Apologies for the low quality image - I don't have the appropriate tools or knowledge to do any better, and it doesn't help that my "PrtScr" screen capture has included what would have been on my second monitor (TV) if it had been turned on. If you can't read it, trust me - I have copied the text verbatim.

    Read the article

  • Securing SSH/SFTP and best practices on security

    - by MultiformeIngegno
    I'm on a fresh VPS with Ubuntu Server 12.04. I wanted to ask you the good practices to apply to enhance security over a stock Ubuntu-server. This is what I did up to now: I added Google Authenticator to SSH, then I created a new user (whom I'll use instead of 'root' for SSH & SFTP access) which I added to my /etc/sudoers list below 'root', so now it's: # User privilege specification root ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL new_user ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL Then I edited sshd_config and set PermitRootLogin to 'no'. Then restarted the ssh service. Is this ok? There are a few things I'd like to ask you though: 1) What's the sense of adding a new (sudoer) user whilst the root user still exist (ok it can't access with root privilege but it's still there..)? 2) System files are owned by 'root'.. I want to use my new_user to access via SFTP but with it I can't edit those files!! Should I mass-CHMOD 'em so that new_user has write perms too? What's the good practice on this? Thanks in advance, I hope you'll tell me if I did something wrong and/or other ways to secure the system. :)

    Read the article

  • Windows 2008 server smart card security module problem

    - by chris13work
    Hi, I've got a smart card reader and a server application using it as a security module. If I run it under DOS prompt, everything is fine. The server is running and clients can connect to it. I tried to install the server as window service and start it. The server starts but always gives back authentication error because it cannot call the smart card to do encryption. Then I tried to start it with task scheduler and set the trigger factor as "on startup". The server starts also but still cannot access the smart card reader. Then I tried remote desktop to the machine and run the server application under DOS prompt. Same error is returned. The situation is that the smart card reader only works under active console desktop environment. In the server application, WINSCARD API is used to access the smart card reader. Any suggestion so that we can access the smart card reader in running services? OS: Windows Server 2008 Smart Card Driver: Windows USB smart card Reader Smart Card API: WINSCARD

    Read the article

  • Windows 2008 server smart card security module problem

    - by chris13work
    Hi, I've got a smart card reader and a server application using it as a security module. If I run it under DOS prompt, everything is fine. The server is running and clients can connect to it. I tried to install the server as window service and start it. The server starts but always gives back authentication error because it cannot call the smart card to do encryption. Then I tried to start it with task scheduler and set the trigger factor as "on startup". The server starts also but still cannot access the smart card reader. Then I tried remote desktop to the machine and run the server application under DOS prompt. Same error is returned. The situation is that the smart card reader only works under active console desktop environment. In the server application, WINSCARD API is used to access the smart card reader. Any suggestion so that we can access the smart card reader in running services? OS: Windows Server 2008 Smart Card Driver: Windows USB smart card Reader Smart Card API: WINSCARD

    Read the article

  • Hiding subfolders from users with Windows Server security

    - by Frans
    Using Windows Server 2008. I would like to allow all users to map to a common network drive and be able to browse it. But, I only want them to be able to see the subfolders they actually have access rights to. Is this doable? Example I have a share with two folders on it; \\domain\share\FolderA \\domain\share\FolderB With three different security groups, I would like to map a network drive for all three to \\domain\share. However, for group1, I want them to only be able to see FolderA, group2 should only see FolderB and group3 should see both. I am not just talking about denying access to the actual folder, which is easy enough, I don't want the user to even be able to see that the folder exists. In other words, when group 1 logs in and do "dir n:\" they should see N:\FolderA When group 2 logs in, they should see N:\FolderB and when group 3 logs in they should see N:\Folder A N:\Folder B My half-baked solution If I completely block access to the root then I can't map a drive to it. I can give everyone the traverse right which then allows the user to map a drive. However, if a member of group1 or group2 tries to go to "N:\" they get an access denied error. If they go to N:\FolderA (for group1) then it works. So, that sort of works, but it would be nicer if the user could actually browse to N:\ and just only see the subfolders they have access to. I am pretty sure I have seen this done but not sure how to do it myself. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Webcam security camera software that runs as a service

    - by hurfdurf
    I've been looking for Windows webcam software that will run as a Windows service without any user login. The goal is to use the webcam as a cheap security camera and log the results to secure networked storage (windows share, not FTP). The requirements are: Motion detection Video capture Runs as a service (should start recording immediately after reboot) Nice to have: Round-robin storage, e.g. 10Gb limit, oldest files overwritten/deleted when space gets low I've read the other webcam questions but still haven't stumbled across anything suitable. Evaluations thus far: Title MotionDetect Service Snapshots Video SpaceLimit License Yawcam Yes Yes Yes No No GPL WebCam ZoneTrigger Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial Dorgem Yes No Yes Yes No GPL AbelCam Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial Logitech Yes No Yes Yes No Paired with camera IspyConnect Yes No Yes Yes Yes Free SecureCam (SourcefoYes No Yes Yes No GPL AbelCam Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial Active WebCam Yes Yes(?) Yes Yes Volume Free Commercial WebCam Surveyor Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial WebCamsPy NA NA NA NA NA GPL Camera: Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 Windows 7 32-bit WebCamsPy failed to initialize so couldn't be tested So far, the contenders: Active Webcam comes the closest, and claims to run as a service, but i haven't been able to get it to record after a cold boot even though a service is running. Yawcam can be set up as a service but doesn't record video. IspyConnect has exactly the type of space limit I want and looks great, but doesn't run as a service (seems also to be a bit of a cpu hog) Any other suggestions? I'm locked into Windows so can't use linux Motion, which looks almost perfect. Any pointers to rich Windows webcam/motion detection libraries out there that could easily be turned into a command line program would also be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Linux security: The dangers of executing malignant code as a standard user

    - by AndreasT
    Slipping some (non-root) user a piece of malignant code that he or she executes might be considered as one of the highest security breaches possible. (The only higher I can see is actually accessing the root user) What can an attacker effectively do when he/she gets a standard, (let's say a normal Ubuntu user) to execute code? Where would an attacker go from there? What would that piece of code do? Let's say that the user is not stupid enough to be lured into entering the root/sudo password into a form/program she doesn't know. Only software from trusted sources is installed. The way I see it there is not really much one could do, is there? Addition: I partially ask this because I am thinking of granting some people shell (non-root) access to my server. They should be able to have normal access to programs. I want them to be able to compile programs with gcc. So there will definitely be arbitrary code run in user-space...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >