Search Results

Search found 55010 results on 2201 pages for 'system security'.

Page 197/2201 | < Previous Page | 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204  | Next Page >

• 'Certificate types are not available' When creating computer certificate?

  - by Anicho

  Environment Windows Server 2008 sp1 Xeon CPU E5430 @ 2.66 GHz 16.0 GB Ram 64-bit Operating System 1TB Disk Space Server Role: SQL Server Other Information: Joint to domain, Logged in user domain administrator Issue Steps that cause issue: Create a computer certificate using mmc snap-in 'certificates' by right clicking on 'Certificates' folder Under 'root\Personal' tree, and clicking All Tasks - Request New Certificate. Certificate Enrollment window appears, you verify you are connected to your network and you are logged onto the domain. Then Click Next, which leads to a window stating the issue: "Certificate types are not available" "You cannot request a certificate this time because no certificate types are available. If you need a certificate contact your administrator." Wanted Solution Create a certificate on this server, to implement SSL connection to MSSQL servers.

  Read the article

• Lock down SFTP access on OpenSolaris

  - by Simon

  Hi all, I have an OpenSolaris 2009.06 server and I'd like to enable a user to remotely change files in a specific directory, ideally via SFTP or FTP-via-SSH. This user does not yet have an account on the machine and I'd like to create it so it's as restricted as possible. Is there a canonical way of doing this? I know about OpenSolaris' role-based access control and authorizations model, but I figure it's a lot of work (i.e., a lot I can mess up) to really lock down a full-blown user account (prevent fork bombs, make sure there's really no other file in the file system which can be written to...). Any hint is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Simon

  Read the article

• ESET Remote Administrator Console showing infected files on a client, but threat log is empty

  - by Aron Rotteveel

  We recently deployed ESET NOD32 Antivirus on our small domain network and use the Remote Adminstrator to manage everything remotely. On a recent full system scan, one of the clients shows 10 infected files of which 4 have been cleaned in the scan log. The strange thing, however, is that the threat log is empty. Is there any reason why the threat log is empty? What has happened to the 6 remaining uncleaned files? Where can I view information on what files are infected and what they have been infected with? I know this can be done through the scan log properties screen, but with 958790 files scanned, I obviously do not want to browse through this list. Any help is appreciated.

  Read the article

• copSHH how to restrict user from going back from there main root

  - by minus4

  I have installed SFTP on a windows servers using copSSH and all is good and it works well however you can go back from the main root. For example when i use C:\copSSH\home{username} as that user i can go back into copSSH and into them directories too. And I have a user setup to actually be C:\inetpub\wwwroot but that user can go into the system and everything i have this set as my path /cygdrive/c/inetpub/wwwroot It would be ideal if the user could only go forward from the start directory, rather than out and about there is no write ability but there is read and download....... thanks

  Read the article

• USB key to pass password in Centos 6

  - by Andrew

  I had a room mate that put a livecd in my desktop and looked around on my machine. I caught him in the act and threw him out. I haven't had a room mate for a while now and so as to avoid the livecd issue again I encrypted the hard drive, the machine is running centos 6.3. Is there anyway that I can avoid typing the password in each time if I have usb key in the machine to feed the password to the system? Additional question. Is there anything you can suggest to solve the problem I have ? Thanks

  Read the article

• Revert "Deny" permissions in Windows 7

  - by saurabhj

  I made a very dumb mistake and I am hoping there is a way to fix this without having to boot in through a Linux Live CD and extracting the data. My user login to my Windows 7 system is: John John is part of the Administrator's group. I have a folder called "C:\Users\John" I tried to make this folder accessible to ONLY John (and deny from all other Administrators) by going to the Folder, Right Click Secturity tab and then selecting all the checkboxes under "Deny" while having selected the "Administrators" group. As a result, I cannot access this folder from any of the accounts: "John" and "Administrator" as both of them belong to the Administrators groupd and deny permissions out-weigh the "Allow Permissions" Is there any way I could revert this back? Thanks a million!

  Read the article

• Securely wiping a file on a tmpfs

  - by Nanzikambe

  I have a script that decrypts some data to a tmpfs, the directory is secure (permissions), the machine's swap is encrypted (random key on boot) and when the script is done it does a 35 pass wipe (Peter Gutmann) of the cleartext on the tmpfs . I do this because I'm aware wiping files on a journaling file system is insecure, data may be recovered. For discussion, here're the relevant bits extracted: # make the tmpfs mkdir /mnt/tmpfs chmod 0700 /mnt/tmpfs mount -t tmpfs -o size=1M tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs cd /mnt/tmpfs # decrypt the data gpg -o - <crypted_input_file> | \ tar -xjpf - # do processing stuff # wipe contents find . -type f -exec bcwipe -I {} ';' # nuke the tmpfs cd .. umount -f /mnt/tmpfs rm -fR /mnt/tmpfs So, my question, assuming for the moment that nobody is able to read the cleartext in the tmpfs while it exists (I use umask to set cleartext to 0600), is there any way any trace of the cleartext could remain either in memory or on disk after the snippet above completes?

  Read the article

• How do you search for backdoors from the previous IT person?

  - by Jason Berg

  We all know it happens. A bitter old IT guy leaves a backdoor into the system and network in order to have fun with the new guys and show the company how bad things are without him. I've never personally experienced this. The most I've experienced is somebody who broke and stole stuff right before leaving. I'm sure this happens, though. So, when taking over a network that can't quite be trusted, what steps should be taken to ensure everything is safe and secure?

  Read the article

• How can I leave the remote screen locked when I ARD/VNC/etc. to my Mac?

  - by Dominic Cooney

  I'm currently using Jolly's Fast VNC and Mac OS X's built-in VNC server (System Preferences, Sharing, Screen Sharing) to access my iMac remotely. Here's my problem: When I'm using the iMac remotely, the screensaver deactivates and the screen is unlocked. If someone had physical access to my iMac they could walk up to it and start using it. Is there some way I can set things up so that when I'm using my iMac remotely the screen stays locked, like Windows XP Professional does when you're using RDP? I know I can use X remotely with the iMac locked, but I would like to use Mac applications remotely, too.

  Read the article

• How to run a service as a user who can't delete or update or create a file

  - by neeraj

  Mongodb is a web based console to try out Mongodb. I have created something similar to try out nodejs. In nodejs I am accepting user input and then I am performing eval on that command. Given the power of nodejs , someone from web console can create a file, delete files on the system or could execute 'rm -rf '. I was thinking will it be okay if I run node as a user called node. This user node will not have any privilege to write anything, create anything or update anything. The only access this user will have is read access. Will that work or that is too much of risk. What is a good strategy to handle such a situation?

  Read the article

• Blacklisting: IP's or domains?

  - by johnnietheblack

  I am implementing a blacklisting system on my website that monitors contact forms for suspicious usage (both spam content and excessive frequency). When I find somebody / robot that meets my criteria for blacklisting, I want to send them to my DB as a blacklisted entity. My question is, should I blacklist them as an IP or as a domain? As far as I can see, blacklisting an IP is going to be far more effective, because I allow people to enter their email address in the form, and they can easily just change their domain on a regular basis. However, the downside is that if I blacklist an IP, I could potentially be blacklisting a large group of people who share an IP, when only one person is bad (ie - college campuses, coffee shops, etc). Is there a solution I'm missing?

  Read the article

• RHEL Cluster FAIL after changing time on system

  - by Eugene S

  I've encountered a strange issue. I had to change the time on my Linux RHEL cluster system. I've done it using the following command from the root user: date +%T -s "10:13:13" After doing this, some message appeared relating to <emerg> #1: Quorum Dissolved however I didn't capture it completely. In order to investigate the issue I looked at /var/log/messages and I've discovered the following: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering GATHER state from 0. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Creating commit token because I am the rep. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Storing new sequence id for ring 354 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering COMMIT state. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering RECOVERY state. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] position [0] member 192.168.1.49: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] previous ring seq 848 rep 192.168.1.49 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] aru 61 high delivered 61 received flag 1 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Did not need to originate any messages in recovery. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Sending initial ORF token Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] CLM CONFIGURATION CHANGE Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] New Configuration: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.49) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Left: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.51) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Joined: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CMAN ] quorum lost, blocking activity Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] CLM CONFIGURATION CHANGE Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] New Configuration: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.49) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Left: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Joined: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [SYNC ] This node is within the primary component and will provide service. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering OPERATIONAL state. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a kernel: dlm: closing connection to node 2 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] got nodejoin message 192.168.1.49 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a clurgmgrd[25809]: <emerg> #1: Quorum Dissolved Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CPG ] got joinlist message from node 1 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Cluster is not quorate. Refusing connection. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Error while processing connect: Connection refused Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Invalid descriptor specified (-21). Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Someone may be attempting something evil. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Error while processing disconnect: Invalid request descriptor Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering GATHER state from 9. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Creating commit token because I am the rep. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Storing new sequence id for ring 358 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering COMMIT state. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering RECOVERY state. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] position [0] member 192.168.1.49: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] previous ring seq 852 rep 192.168.1.49 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] aru f high delivered f received flag 1 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] position [1] member 192.168.1.51: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] previous ring seq 852 rep 192.168.1.51 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] aru f high delivered f received flag 1 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Did not need to originate any messages in recovery. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] Sending initial ORF token Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] CLM CONFIGURATION CHANGE Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] New Configuration: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.49) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Left: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Joined: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] CLM CONFIGURATION CHANGE Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] New Configuration: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.49) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.51) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Left: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] Members Joined: Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] #011r(0) ip(192.168.1.51) Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [SYNC ] This node is within the primary component and will provide service. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [TOTEM] entering OPERATIONAL state. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [MAIN ] Node chb_sfe2a not joined to cman because it has existing state Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] got nodejoin message 192.168.1.49 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CLM ] got nodejoin message 192.168.1.51 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CPG ] got joinlist message from node 1 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a openais[25715]: [CPG ] got joinlist message from node 2 Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Cluster is not quorate. Refusing connection. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Error while processing connect: Connection refused Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Invalid descriptor specified (-111). Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Someone may be attempting something evil. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Error while processing get: Invalid request descriptor Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Invalid descriptor specified (-21). Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Someone may be attempting something evil. Mar 22 16:40:42 hsmsc50sfe1a ccsd[25705]: Error while processing disconnect: Invalid request descriptor How could this be related to the time change procedure I performed?

  Read the article

• SELinux adding new allowed samba type to access httpd_sys_content_t?

  - by Josh

  allow samba_share_t httpd_sys_content_t {read execute getattr setattr write}; allow smbd_t httpd_sys_content_t {read execute getattr setattr write}; I am taking a stab in the dark with resources I've looked at, at various places that the above policies are what I want. I basically want to allow Samba to write to my web docs without giving it free access to the operating system. I read a post by a NSA rep saying the best way was defining a new type and allowing both samba and httpd access. Setting the content to public content (public_content_rw_t) does not work without making use of some unrestrictive booleans. To state this in short, how do I allow samba to access a new type?

  Read the article

• tacacs integration with database

  - by chingupt

  We are setting up TACACS+ in our network which is a mix of Cisco AP's and other brands. However we have a centralized managemnet system which allows our customers to centrally configure services. Hence we would like to setup a tacacs+ server integrated with some database. Can this be done? I found the following package at www.shrubbery.net/tac_plus/ but it does not have the necessary plugins for database. Please let me know how to go about this. TIA Sachin

  Read the article

• Bacula Director and Storage in LAN

  - by B14D3

  I have two networks LAN and DMZ.. Machines in DMZ are accesible from internet ( only over http). In LAN I have servers that see all LAN and all DMZ machines but machinse from DMZ don't see any LAN servers. Machines in LAN have access only to all LAN and DMZ, no direct access to internet and no access from internet. DMZ <------ LAN DMZ ----X--->LAN I'm planning to configure Bacula as major backup system. My plan is to install Bacula Director and Storage deamon on the same server in LAN for safety reasons. So my question is: Will this configuration work, is it posible for bacula director and storage deamon installed on server in LAN to makes backup servers that are in my DMZ? Or in this network configuration Bacula should be in DMZ? (If yes will I can backup with it servers in LAN ?)

  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

• How do I disable administrator prompt in Windows 8?

  - by Arnold Zokas

  I am using Windows 8 Enterprise on my development machine. Most of the time, I need full administrator for debugging, changing system files, etc. In Windows 7, setting UAC to "never notify" would disable any administrator prompts. In Windows 8 this is no longer the case. Even with UAC disabled I get prompted to grant programs elevated privileges. Is there a way disable this behaviour? Note: I am fully aware of the repercussions. I have antivirus, firewall, etc and am generally quite careful about what I download or install on my machine.

  Read the article

• Recommended way to restrict Apache users

  - by Dor

  Following on why should we restrict Apache users, another two questions arises: What is the recommended method of restricting the places Apache users can traverse & read in the file system? What to do against fork bombs and other shell scripting problems? (bash scripting is allowed) My possible solutions (I prefer to know which solution you choose and why): chroot OR mod_chroot disable bash OR use Restricted BASH Please offer another solutions if you find appropriate. (perhaps selinux is?) Current status: Users are allowed to executed bash scripts (via PHP for example) suexec is active Apache requested are served with FastCGI for PHP

  Read the article

• /etc/hosts.deny ignored in Ubuntu 14.04

  - by Matt

  I have Apache2 running on Ubuntu 14.04LTS. To begin securing network access to the machine, I want to start by blocking everything, then make specific allow statements for specific subnets to browse to sites hosted in Apache. The Ubuntu Server is installed with no packages selected during install, the only packages added after install are: apt-get update; apt-get install apache2, php5 (with additional php5-modules), openssh-server, mysql-client Following are my /etc/hosts.deny & /etc/hosts.allow settings: /etc/hosts.deny ALL:ALL /etc/hosts.allow has no allow entries at all. I would expect all network protocols to be denied. The symptom is that I can still web browse to sites hosted on the Apache web server even though there is a deny all statement in /etc/hosts.deny The system was rebooted after the deny entry was added. Why would /etc/hosts.deny with ALL:ALL be ignored and allow http browsing to sites hosted on the apache web server?

  Read the article

• How to send a batch file by email

  - by MikeL

  Trying to send a batch file as an email attachment, I get the following error: mx.google.com rejected your message to the following e-mail addresses: [email protected] mx.google.com gave this error: Our system detected an illegal attachment on your message. Please visit http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?answer=6590 to review our attachment guidelines. q42si10198525wei.6 Your message wasn't delivered because the recipient's e-mail provider rejected it. This also happens if I place the batch file in a .zip archive. I need to send a batch file to everyone at my company for them to run, preferably without having to change file extensions first. Is this possible by email?

  Read the article

• User accounts in FTP

  - by Brad

  I have an FTP server(proftpd on debian) that I'm going to allow a couple friends access to, and I want some safety nets in place, just in case. These are some of the things I'd like to do: Jail the accounts to their home directories and impose a cap on the amount of data they can upload Allow them access to a shared folder(via symlink or something) where they have full access(Also with a storage cap, but larger) Allow my own account full access to the system(Using groups I guess) Not allow anonymous access, or allow it with its own folder, separate from the shared user folder Currently, I've got the accounts set up and jailed, but it seems like the symlink that I put in is not allowing them to visit the shared folder. I suppose this has to do with them not having read permissions anywhere but their own home directories, or maybe it's something else, I'll continue to look into it and provide any information that is requested. Is what I'm trying to do possible? Any tips or resources that you can share are appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Homegroup and NTFS permissions

  - by bytenik

  I'm running a copy of Windows 7 as a "server" at my home. I have several file shares that I want to make available to specific users only. I've modified the NTFS permissions to only allow these users to access their respective shares. However, while a locally logged on user can access the actual folders just fine, over the network the remote access is authenticating as HomeGroupUser$ rather than the actual user in question, as shown by the Computer Management panel for shares. I do have matching user accounts (i.e. my username locally is abc and a parallel account with username abc and the same password exists on the server machine). I don't want to disable homegroup because there are other shares where homegroup authentication would be desirable, especially for some people where they don't have a parallel account. Is there a way to get the system to authenticate first by matching username, and then by homegroup authentication if there's no matching user?

  Read the article

• Web Server Users - Best Practice

  - by Toby

  I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Web Server Users - Best Practice

  - by Toby

  I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Window 2003 Server - Logon Failure error message in Event Viewer

  - by user45192

  Hi guys, I received alot of event logged in the event viewer with this message. I notice is always the same user id which encounters this error. The user id is use by an application to access the database. However, this account does not exits on this server. How do I trace the services/program use by this user id which causes these error messages? Reason=Unknown user name or bad password&&User Name=&&Domain=&&Logon Type=3&&Logon Process=NtLmSsp&&Authentication Package=NTLM&&Workstation Name=&&Caller User Name=-&&Caller Domain=-&&Caller Logon ID=-&&Caller Process ID=-&&Transited Services=-&&Source Network Address=-&&Source Port=-&&User=SYSTEM&&ComputerName=

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204  | Next Page >