Search Results

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

Page 190/869 | < Previous Page | 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197  | Next Page >

  • Retrieve malicious IP addresses from Apache logs and block them with iptables

    - by Gabriel Talavera
    Im trying to keep away some attackers that try to exploit XSS vulnerabilities from my website, I have found that most of the malicious attempts start with a classic "alert(document.cookie);\" test. The site is not vulnerable to XSS but I want to block the offending IP addresses before they found a real vulnerability, also, to keep the logs clean. My first thought is to have a script constantly checking in the Apache logs all IP addresses that start with that probe and send those addresses to an iptables drop rule. With something like this: cat /var/log/httpd/-access_log | grep "alert(document.cookie);" | awk '{print $1}' | uniq Why would be an effective way to send the output of that command to iptables? Thanks in advance for any input!

    Read the article

  • I am starting to think that Prevx.com isnt a legit site...but heres my long-winded question

    - by cop1152
    I apologize in advance for the long-winded post. I posted it all because I believe its informative and may be useful. Also, I posted my question at the end. Moments ago I was RDC to a file server in my home (from inside my home). I had opened Firefox and Googled for a manufacturers website. Immediately after clicking the link, Firefox abruptly closed. This seemed odd to me to so I checked the running processes and discovered d.exe, e.exe, and f.exe running. I Googled these processes on a different machine and found them belonging to a key-logger/screen-capturer/trojan called defender.exe, which according to the Prevx lives in c:\documents and settings\user\local settings\temp. (Prevx link http://www.prevx.com/filenames/147352809685142526-X1/DEFENDER32.EXE.html) Simultaneously, an obviously-spoofed Windows Firewall popup appeared on the server asking me to click ‘yes’ to update Windows Firewall. At this time I ended all rogue processes, emptied the temp folder, removed defender.exe from startup, and checked my registry and a few other locations. Before deleting Defender.exe I noted that it was created moments ago, just before Firefox crashed. I believe that I was ‘almost’ infected with this malware. I believe that it needed me to click the phony popup in order to complete infection because it wasn’t allowed to execute processes from the temp folder. After cleaning the machine, I restarted it and have been monitoring it for over an hour. I am debating on whether or not to restore the Windows partition (a separate physical drive from the data) or to just watch it for awhle. I should mention that, because of the specs on this machine, I do not run antivirus software, but I know it well and inspect it regularly. It is a very old Compaq with a 400mhz processer and 512mb of ram. I have a static IP and the server is in the DMZ running an FTP client and some HTTP server software. All files transferred to and stored on this machine are scanned for malware before transferring. Usually the machine only runs 19 processes and performs pretty well for its intended purpose. I posted the story so that you could be aware of a possible new piece of malware and how it acts, but I also have a question or two. First, over the last few months I have noticed that PREVX is listed at the top of most of my Google searches when researching malware, especially for new or obscure malware…and they always want you to purchase something. I don’t think they are one of the top AV companies, so it seems odd that they are always the top Google result. Does anyone have any experience with any of their products? Also, what sites do you rely on for malware researching? Recently, I have found it difficult to find good info because of HijackThis-logs and other deadend info cluttering up my searches. And lastly, besides antivirus, third-party firewall, etc, what settings would you use to lock down a machine to make it more secure in instances where a stubborn admin like myself refuses to run AV? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Setting the secure flag on cookies from Outlook Web Access

    - by Cheekysoft
    I'm running Exchange 2007 SP3 which is exposing outlook web access over only HTTPS. However the server delivers the sessionid cookie without the secure flag set. Even though I don't have port 80 open, this cookie is still vulnerable to being stolen over port 80 in the event of a man-in-the-middle attack. It also contributes to a PCI-DSS failure Does anyone know if I can persuade the web server/application to set the secure flag?

    Read the article

  • How can I stop SipVicious ('friendly-scanner') from flooding my SIP server?

    - by a1kmm
    I run an SIP server which listens on UDP port 5060, and needs to accept authenticated requests from the public Internet. The problem is that occasionally it gets picked up by people scanning for SIP servers to exploit, who then sit there all day trying to brute force the server. I use credentials that are long enough that this attack will never feasibly work, but it is annoying because it uses up a lot of bandwidth. I have tried setting up fail2ban to read the Asterisk log and ban IPs that do this with iptables, which stops Asterisk from seeing the incoming SIP REGISTER attempts after 10 failed attempts (which happens in well under a second at the rate of attacks I'm seeing). However, SipVicious derived scripts do not immediately stop sending after getting an ICMP Destination Host Unreachable - they keep hammering the connection with packets. The time until they stop is configurable, but unfortunately it seems that the attackers doing these types of brute force attacks generally set the timeout to be very high (attacks continue at a high rate for hours after fail2ban has stopped them from getting any SIP response back once they have seen initial confirmation of an SIP server). Is there a way to make it stop sending packets at my connection?

    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

  • Efficient way to secure tomcat database connections

    - by Greymeister
    Our customer has a problem with database information in plaintext within a server.xml or context.xml file on the Tomcat server. I've looked at several sites like OWASP and it seems like there's no obvious solution. I've also seen things like this wordpress blog which describe implementing a custom Tomcat extension to do this. There must exist some standard implementation(s) already without having to roll your own. Does anyone have experience with such a solution?

    Read the article

  • How can I protect files on my NGiNX server?

    - by Jean-Nicolas Boulay Desjardins
    I am trying to protect files on my server (multiple types), with NGiNX and PHP. Basically I want people to have to sign in to the website if they want to access those static files like images. DropBox does it very well. Where by they force you to sign in to access any static files you put on there server. I though about using NGiNX Perl Module. And I would write a perl script that would check the session to see if the user was sign in to give them access to a static file. I would prefer using PHP because all my code is running under PHP and I am not sure how to check a session created by PHP with PERL. So basically my question is: How can I protect static files of any types that would need the user to have sign in and have a valid session created with a PHP script?

    Read the article

  • How do I remove the ServerSignature added by mod_fcgid?

    - by matthew
    I'm running Mod_Security and I'm using the SecServerSignature to customize the Server header that Apache returns. This part works fine, however I'm also running mod_fcgid which appends "mod_fcgid/2.3.5" to the header. Is there any way I can turn this off? Setting ServerSignature off doesn't do anything. I was able to get it to go away by changing the ServerTokens but that removed the customization I had added.

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - 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

  • Why some recovery tools are still able to find deleted files after I purge Recycle Bin, defrag the disk and zero-fill free space?

    - by Ivan
    As far as I understand, when I delete (without using Recycle Bin) a file, its record is removed from the file system table of contents (FAT/MFT/etc...) but the values of the disk sectors which were occupied by the file remain intact until these sectors are reused to write something else. When I use some sort of erased files recovery tool, it reads those sectors directly and tries to build up the original file. In this case, what I can't understand is why recovery tools are still able to find deleted files (with reduced chance of rebuilding them though) after I defragment the drive and overwrite all the free space with zeros. Can you explain this? I thought zero-overwritten deleted files can be only found by means of some special forensic lab magnetic scan hardware and those complex wiping algorithms (overwriting free space multiple times with random and non-random patterns) only make sense to prevent such a physical scan to succeed, but practically it seems that plain zero-fill is not enough to wipe all the tracks of deleted files. How can this be?

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - 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

  • Which linux x86 hardware keystore?

    - by byeo
    I'm terminating SSL/TLS in my DMZ and I have to assume that machine will be hacked. At which point my certificates are compromised. Previously I've used nCipher hardware keystore/accelerator to solve this issue. These cards won't reveal the private key even to root. The card performs the encryption and decryption onboard and is hardened against physical attack. The only way to get at the keys is by attaching a smart card reader to the card itself. I'm having trouble finding information about something to recreate this approach. Is this the domain of specialist switches and firewalls these days? This old page references some of the old hardware: http://www.kegel.com/ssl/hw.html#cards

    Read the article

  • Explanation of nodev and nosuid in fstab

    - by Ivan Kovacevic
    I see those two options constantly suggested on the web when someone describes how to mount a tmpfs or ramfs. Often also with noexec but I'm specifically interested in nodev and nosuid. I basically hate just blindly repeating what somebody suggested, without real understanding. And since I only see copy/paste instructions on the net regarding this, I ask here. This is from documentation: nodev - Don't interpret block special devices on the filesystem. nosuid - Block the operation of suid, and sgid bits. But I would like a practical explanation what could happen if I leave those two out. Let's say that I have configured tmpfs or ramfs(without these two mentioned options set) that is accessible(read+write) by a specific (non-root)user on the system. What can that user do to harm the system? Excluding the case of consuming all available system memory in case of ramfs

    Read the article

  • How to protect custom shapes from being reused? Visio 2010

    - by Chris
    We are building a set of documentation for our business with Visio 2010. We need to make the Visio files accessible to external consultants for review, but we want to ensure that they cannot copy any of our custom shapes or formulas. How can we protect custom shapes/stencils so that they cannot be used outside of our documents? Or, if that's not possible, how can we mark our shapes in such a way that we could prove that they were created by us?

    Read the article

  • Why not block ICMP?

    - by Agvorth
    I think I almost have my iptables setup complete on my CentOS 5.3 system. Here is my script... # Establish a clean slate iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -F # Flush all rules iptables -X # Delete all chains # Disable routing. Drop packets if they reach the end of the chain. iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Drop all packets with a bad state iptables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # Accept any packets that have something to do with ones we've sent on outbound iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Accept any packets coming or going on localhost (this can be very important) iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Accept ICMP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT # Allow ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow httpd iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSL iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP For context, this machine is a Virtual Private Server Web app host. In a previous question, Lee B said that I should "lock down ICMP a bit more." Why not just block it altogether? What would happen if I did that (what bad thing would happen)? If I need to not block ICMP, how could I go about locking it down more?

    Read the article

  • SFTP: How to keep data out of the DMZ

    - by ChronoFish
    We are investigating solutions to the following problem: We have external (Internet) users who need access to sensitive information. We could offer it to them via SFTP which would offer a secure transport method. However, we don't want to maintain the data on server as it would then reside in the DMZ. Is there an SFTP server that has "copy on access" such that if the box in the DMZ were to be compromised, no actual data resided on that box? I am envisioning an SFTP Proxy or SFTP passthrough. Does such a product exist currently?

    Read the article

  • is there any valid reason for users to request phpinfo()

    - by The Journeyman geek
    I'm working on writing a set of rules for fail2ban to make life a little more interesting for whoever is trying to bruteforce his way into my system. A good majority of the attempts tend to revolve around trying to get into phpinfo() via my webserver -as below GET //pma/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 GET //admin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 GET //dbadmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 GET //mysql/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 I'm wondering if there's any valid reason for a user to attempt to access phpinfo() via apache, since if not, i can simply use that, or more specifically the regex GET //[^>]+=phpinfo\(\) as a filter to eliminate these attacks

    Read the article

  • Is there a filesystem firewall?

    - by Jenko
    Ever since firewalls appeared on the scene, it became hard for rogue programs to access the internet. But you and I know that running applications get unrestricted access to the filesystem. They can read your files and send them to poppa. (programs such as web browsers and IM clients, which are allowed thru the internet firewall) Any way to know which programs are accessing your files? or limit their access to a specific partition?

    Read the article

  • User permission settings on DNS with windows 2003 server R2 standard edition

    - by Ghost Answer
    I have windows server 2003 r2 standard edition and some XP OS clients systems. I have created the DNS and profiles for all user. Now I want to authorized some users to installation of softwares, remove softwares and other such kind of things. How to I make such kind of policies for all different users on DNS. Please help me. May be this question can be same for another but I didn't get the solutions.

    Read the article

  • china and gmail attachs -

    - by doug
    "We have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.” [source] I don't know much about how internet works, but as long the chines gov has access to the chines internet providers servers, why do they need to hack gmail accounts? I assume that i don't understand how submitting/writing a message(from user to gmail servers) works, in order to be sent later to the other email address. Who can tell me how submitting a message to a web form works?

    Read the article

  • CPANEL ModSec2 not working with SecFilterSelective

    - by jfreak53
    Ok, I have cPanel/WHM latest on a Dedi, here are my specs on apache: Server version: Apache/2.2.23 (Unix) Server built: Oct 13 2012 19:33:23 Cpanel::Easy::Apache v3.14.13 rev9999 I just ran a re-compile using easyapache as you can see by the date. When running it I made sure that ModSec was selected and it stated in big bold letters something to the effect of If you install Apache 2.2.x you get ModSec 2 So I believed it :) I recompiled, I then ran: grep -i release /home/cpeasyapache/src/modsecurity-apache_2.6.8/apache2/mod_security2.c Hmm, the file is there but grep doesn't output anything, if I run: grep -i release /home/cpeasyapache/src/modsecurity-apache_1.9.5/apache2/mod_security.c I of course get the ModSec 1 version output. But the thing is that ModSec2 is installed since the c file is there. So I continued and put the following in modsec2.user.conf: SecFilterScanOutput On SecFilterSelective OUTPUT "text" Now when I restart Apache I get this error: Syntax error on line 1087 of /usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf: Invalid command 'SecFilterScanOutput', perhaps misspelled or defined by a module not included in the server configuration Now supposedly this is supposed to work, I even have it running in ModSec2 on a non-cpanel server setup manually. So I know ModSec2 supports it. Anyone have any ideas? I have asked this question over at cpanel forum and it got nowhere.

    Read the article

  • Get the "source network address" in Event ID 529 audit entries on Windows XP

    - by Make it useful Keep it simple
    In windows server 2003 when an Event 529 (logon failure) occures with a logon type of 10 (remote logon), the source network IP address is recorded in the event log. On a windows XP machine, this (and some other details) are omitted. If a bot is trying a brute force over RDP (some of my XP machines are (and need to be) exposed with a public IP address), i cannot see the originating IP address so i don't know what to block (with a script i run every few minutes). The DC does not log this detail either when the logon attempt is to the client xp machine and the DC is only asked to authenticate the credentials. Any help getting this detail in the log would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is visiting HTTPS websites on a public hotspot secure?

    - by Calmarius
    It's often said that HTTPS SSL/TLS connections are encrypted and said to be secure because the communication between the server and me is encrypted (also provides server authentication) so if someone sniffs my packets, they will need zillions of years to decrypt if using brute force in theory. Let's assume I'm on a public wifi and there is a malicious user on the same wifi who sniffs every packet. Now let's assume I'm trying to access my gmail account using this wifi. My browser does a SSL/TLS handshake with the server and gets the keys to use for encryption and decryption. If that malicious user sniffed all my incoming and outgoing packets. Can he calculate the same keys and read my encrypted traffic too or even send encrypted messages to the server in my name?

    Read the article

  • Windows Console .exe won't run if it's downloaded from the internet

    - by Jason Kester
    I have a nightly job on Windows Server 2003 that automatically updates itself by downloading its .exe from Amazon S3. I've noticed that when it performs the download and tries to run the newly downloaded .exe, it is immediately kicked back to the command line without actually running anything. I can verify this by sticking the new version of the code directly on the server and watching it execute successfully, then uploading it to the "update" server, running the bootstrapper then running the .exe and observing it fail to execute. I can only assume that this is due to Windows protecting me from running code from outside its trusted zone. How does a fella go about configuring it to allow code from this particular external location to execute? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Several border firewalls in the same network

    - by nimai
    I'm currently analyzing the consequences of multipath connections for the firewalls. In that context, I'm wondering if it's really uncommon to have several firewalls at the borders of a network to protect it. The typical case I'd imagine would be a multihomed network, for which the administrator would have different policies for links from different (or not) ISPs. Or maybe even in an ISP's network. What would be the practical (dis)advantages of such a configuration? Could you provide an example of an existing topology using several border firewalls?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197  | Next Page >