Search Results

Search found 6346 results on 254 pages for 'wordpress members'.

Page 206/254 | < Previous Page | 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213  | Next Page >

  • Can't add service account to domain group during SQL cluster install

    - by Sam
    I'm installing a 2008 instance on a Server 2003 machine which is already running SQL 2005. I need to set up domain groups for the security setup step: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179530.aspx On Windows Server 2003, specify domain groups for SQL Server services. All resource permissions are controlled by domain-level groups that include SQL Server service accounts as group members. Much more info on this here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/910708 I've had problems with being able to add the windows service accounts to the groups at install time. The security admins had to make my account a domain admin - which they were hesitant to do. The account under which SQL Server Setup is running must have permissions to add accounts to the domain groups. Is there a specific security setting which would allow my account to add accounts to a group? UPDATE: I'm looking for specific instructions. I have a global group called domain\servicegroup - what do I tell the security folks to do. I'd love to figure it out myself, but I don't have access to this stuff.

    Read the article

  • Postfix not sending email after upgrading to Ubuntu 12.04

    - by Luke
    After upgrading a server from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04, postfix is no longer sending email through sendgrid.com. I followed this guide about 6 months ago and everything had been working perfectly until the upgrade. Now it doesn't seem to be authenticating with sendgrid. This is the error I get in my syslog when I try to send an email. May 22 10:19:55 server postfix/smtp[3844]: 983B11C5DA: to=<to address>, relay=smtp.sendgrid.net[174.36.32.204]:587, delay=0.05, delays=0.01/0/0.04/0, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host smtp.sendgrid.net[174.36.32.204] said: 550 Cannot receive from specified address <sendgrid username>: Unauthenticated senders not allowed (in reply to MAIL FROM command)) This is from postconf -n alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases append_dot_mydomain = no biff = no broken_sasl_auth_clients = no config_directory = /etc/postfix header_size_limit = 4096000 inet_interfaces = loopback-only mailbox_size_limit = 0 mydestination = localhost, mylinode.members.linode.com myhostname = hostname mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [::ffff:127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 readme_directory = no recipient_delimiter = + relayhost = [smtp.sendgrid.net]:587 smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtp_sasl_mechanism_filter = login smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl/sendgrid smtp_sasl_security_options = noanonymous smtp_tls_security_level = may smtp_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtp_scache smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Ubuntu) smtpd_tls_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem smtpd_tls_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key smtpd_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtpd_scache smtpd_use_tls = yes Any help would be greatly appreciated. I would be happy to post any other logs or other relevant information.

    Read the article

  • Linux group permissions getting overwritten by owner

    - by Andy
    I am not a user of Linux, but I am encountering some permissions problems with it that I hope someone can shed some light on. Bit of background: A colleague of mine has a Linux box (running Debian I believe) with an SVN repository on it. The repository directory and files 'owner' is my colleauge. We are both members of a group called 'users'. He manages several projects both Linux and Windows apps, while I have one Windows app. For the Windows apps, we both use TortoiseSVN via an SSH link to commit/update. Performing the command 'ls -l' shows the repository files and folders on the Linux box to have the following permissions: -rwxrwx--- john users However, when my colleauge commits to the repository, the permissions change to: -rwxrwx--- john john This then means I get 'Permission denied' when trying to access the repository myself as it appears that the group permissions have been overwritten with only 'owner' permissions. To fix this, a 'chown -R' command is applied to the files/folders to set the permissions back to owner/group, but each time he writes to the repository, the issue repeats. I'm not sure if this is solely an SVN problem, or a more fundamental owner/group issue. Anyone any clue on how to stop this happening, or where to go and look? I'm trying to help out my colleague who is having some trouble resolving this issue. Apologies for the vague info, I hope I have conveyed the problem clear enough. Like I say, I am not a Linux user, I have only put down what I have managed to pick up from looking over his shoulder. Thanks for any pointers I can pass on!

    Read the article

  • Windows RDP cannot connect to x64 server from XP SP3+

    - by Tom
    Hi all, I have a strange problem that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere online. The issue has to do with using Windows RDP to connect to our servers. Here is what works: -XP/Vista client (any SPs) connecting to 32-bit Server 2003 machine -XP (SP2 and lower) client conecting to 64-bit Server 2003 machine Here is what does not work: - XP SP3+/Vista client connecting to 64-bit Server 2003 machine It appears that the issue is that XP SP3 and Vista clients cannot connect to x64 Server 2003 boxes. After entering the username/password, we get an error message saying the below, and the connection drops: To log on to this remote computer, you must have Terminal Server User Access persmissions on this computer. By default, members of the Remote Desktop Users group have these permissions. If you are not a member of the Remote Desktop Users group or another group that has these persmissions, or if the Remote Desktop User group does not have these permissions, you must be granted these permissions manually. The issue is that the user is a member of the Administrators group, which has permission. Also, logging in using the same username, but from an XP SP2 machine, has no problems at all. I hope I explained this well enough, and any help/insight that can be given would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom

    Read the article

  • .htm pages working but .aspx pages throwing errors

    - by Mike
    Our site has thousands of visitors per day but we've been receiving reports from some of our members that they are able to hit our main page, presumably because it's a .htm page, but when they click off to a .aspx page, they get an error. I've done as much research as I know how and here is what I have come up with: - We have not made any changes to IIS on our server in months. - We have a couple of customers that have been willing to work with us and provide information about their system. One customer is running Vista, the other is running XP. - We had one of the customers test both Firefox and MSIE. She gets same error in both. - One customer said, "We were able to post the profile and searched on available jobs and it worked w/ Firefox for a day, then it just quit working...we did not change any settings to Firefox after we posted the profile." - We asked the customer to clear their cache and try again. They responded with, "We just cleared the cache and got the same error; btw, I periodically clear the cache -- almost every day." Summary We have thousands of customers that hit our site with no problem. We can't reproduce these errors. These customers are getting the same error in different browsers. They are only getting the error on .aspx pages. They still get the error after clearing their cache. We would appreciate any thoughts on what other questions we could ask these customers or thoughts on how we can further troubleshoot this problem.

    Read the article

  • Matlab computations done over Apple Filing Protocol (AFP) depend on POSIX permissions, ignores ACLs

    - by flumignan
    I'm a system administrator and have never used Matlab, so forgive my general ignorance of the program. My users have encountered problems when executing scripted Matlab actions over AFP to a Mac OS X Server 10.6.7 where the access control list (ACL) should allow actions, but the POSIX-style permissions disallow the activity. It seems as if Matlab, run locally on the Mac workstations on datasets on the remote server, ignores the ACLs entirely. This is the only application I've ever seen behave this way. The server's filesystem is HFS+J and all other activity is performing as expected. These users cannot use CIFS because of our integration with external directory systems. In this example, the directory bxdata, the members of the group cibturner should be able to modify the files. Indeed, they can using any other method except via Matlab scripts. When the Matlab script hits these files, the POSIX permissions of 644 disallow modification. It's as if the ACLs are irrelevant. [root@cib 16:00:24 /14181.2_5sM]# ls -leh@ bxdata/ total 128 -rw-r--r--+ 1 kel32 staff 18K Feb 15 09:31 TS-5sMath030708-21073-1.edat 0: group:cibturner inherited allow read,write,execute,append,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,writesecurity,chown 1: group:cibsrlocaladmins inherited allow read,write,execute,append,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,writesecurity,chown 2: group:crcservergroup inherited allow read,write,execute,append,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,writesecurity,chown -rw-r--r--+ 1 kel32 staff 25K Feb 15 09:31 TS-5sMath030708-21073-1.txt 0: group:cibturner inherited allow read,write,execute,append,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,writesecurity,chown 1: group:cibsrlocaladmins inherited allow read,write,execute,append,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,writesecurity,chown 2: group:crcservergroup inherited allow read,write,execute,append,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,writesecurity,chown Because this server has HIPAA data, security is critical. We are not using networked home directories or SAN technology. The MatLab program is run on the user's hard drive; access is granted via Kerberized AFP.

    Read the article

  • Hiding a Website from Search Engine Bots and Viewers by Disabling Default VirtualHost

    - by Basel Shishani
    When staging a website on a remote VPS, we would like it to be accessible to team members only, and we would also like to keep the search engine bots off until the site is finalized. Access control by host whether in Iptables or Apache is not desirable, as accessing hosts can vary. After some reading in Apache config and other SF postings, I settled on the following design that relies on restricting access to only through specific domain names: Default virtual host would be disabled in Apache config as follows - relying on Apache behavior to use first virtual host for site default: <VirtualHost *:80> # Anything matching this should be silently ignored. </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName secretsiteone.com DocumentRoot /var/www/secretsiteone.com </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName secretsitetwo.com ... </VirtualHost> Then each team member can add the domain names in their local /etc/hosts: xx.xx.xx.xx secrethostone.com My question is: is the above technique good enough to achieve the above said goals esp restricting SE bots, or is it possible that bots would work around that. Note: I understand that mod_rewrite rules con be used to achieve a similar effect as discussed here: How to disable default VirtualHost in apache2?, so the same question would apply to that technique too. Also please note: the content is not highly secretive - the idea is not to devise something that is hack proof, so we are not concerned about traffic interception or the like. The idea is to keep competitors and casual surfers from viewing the content before it's released, and to prevent SE bots from indexing it.

    Read the article

  • Read access to Active Directory property (uSNCreated)

    - by Tom Ligda
    I have an issue with read access to the uSNCreated property when doing LDAP searches. If I do an LDAP search with a user that is a member of the Domain Admins group (UserA), I can see the uSNCreated property for every user. The problem is that if I do an LDAP search with a user (UserB) that is not a member of the Domain Admins group, I can see the uSNCreated property for some users (UserGroupA) and not for some users (UserGroupB). When I look at the users in UserGroupA and compare them to the users in UserGroupB, I see a crucial difference in the "Security" tab. The users in UserGroupA have the "Include inheritable permissions from this object's parent" unchecked. The users in UserGroupB have that option checked. I also noticed that the users in UserGroupA are users that were created earlier. The users in UserGroupB are users created recently. It's difficult to quantify, but I estimate the border between creation time between the users in UserGroupA and UserGroupB is about 6 months ago. What can cause the user creation to default to having that security property checked as opposed to unchecked? A while back (maybe around 6 months ago?) I changed the domain functional level from Windows Server 2003 to Windows Server 2008 R2. Would that have had this effect? (I can't exactly downgrade the domain functional level to test it out.) Is this security property actually the cause of the issue with read access to the uSNChanged property on LDAP searches? It seems correlated, but I'm not sure about causation. What I want in the end is for all authenticated users to have read access to the uSNCreated property for all users when doing an LDAP search. I would also be OK if I could grant read access for that property to an AD group. Then I can control access by adding members to the group.

    Read the article

  • Windows RDP cannot connect to x64 server from XP SP3+ [closed]

    - by Tom
    Hi all, I have a strange problem that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere online. The issue has to do with using Windows RDP to connect to our servers. Here is what works: -XP/Vista client (any SPs) connecting to 32-bit Server 2003 machine -XP (SP2 and lower) client conecting to 64-bit Server 2003 machine Here is what does not work: - XP SP3+/Vista client connecting to 64-bit Server 2003 machine It appears that the issue is that XP SP3 and Vista clients cannot connect to x64 Server 2003 boxes. After entering the username/password, we get an error message saying the below, and the connection drops: To log on to this remote computer, you must have Terminal Server User Access persmissions on this computer. By default, members of the Remote Desktop Users group have these permissions. If you are not a member of the Remote Desktop Users group or another group that has these persmissions, or if the Remote Desktop User group does not have these permissions, you must be granted these permissions manually. The issue is that the user is a member of the Administrators group, which has permission. Also, logging in using the same username, but from an XP SP2 machine, has no problems at all. I hope I explained this well enough, and any help/insight that can be given would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom

    Read the article

  • Active Directory Restricted Group confusion

    - by pepoluan
    I am trying to implement Restricted Group policy for my company's AD infrastructure, namely standardizing the local "Administrators" group. The documentation (and various webpages) said that the "Members of this group" policy will wipe out the "Administrators" group. However, an experiment made me confused: I created 2 GPOs: GPO-A replaces the Local Administrators with a list of domain users (e.g., "Alice" and "Bob") GPO-B inserts a domain user (e.g., "Charlie" -- not part of GPO A) into the Local Administrators Experiment 1: GPO-A gets applied first (link order 2) Everything happens as expected: GPO-A cleans out Local Admins and add "Alice" & "Bob" gets added; GPO-B adds "Charlie". Experiment 2: GPO-B is applied first What happens: "Charlie" gets added to the Local Admins group (which also contains 2 local users) The local users on the PC gets deleted, and "Alice" and "Bob" gets added. Result: Local Admins contain "Alice", "Bob", and "Charlie" My confusion: In Experiment 2, I thought GPO-A will totally erase the Local Admins group, including users added by GPO-B (since GPO-A gets applied after GPO-B). As it happens, it only erase local users from the Local Admins, but keeps the domain users. So, is that the way it should be? Or am I doing something incorrectly?

    Read the article

  • Permissions on mac for itunes library with multiple users - idea

    - by John
    I currently have a lot of music on an external drive and my itunes set up from there. However, periodically, when the external drive isn't connected, itunes will default back to the library location of my home directory user path. I don't want to mess with an external drive, as my mac HD is large enough to house the music collection. However, I have 4 family members - all with their own logins - using this same gob of music. I don't want 4 copies of the library, only one with all libraries referencing it. So, what I want to do is: 1 - move all music files to a shared directory at /Macintosh HD/users/music. I created this directory and adjusted permissions, so all four users can read and write to this directory. 2 - get all four accounts to reference this library instead of the external or local home locations I am hoping I can just check the box to keep library organized in my account, which is the admin and let itunes move it all. Then delete current libraries for each account and re-add from the new shared location. Will the itunes organization process cause permissions issues either by setting permissions to all the files access to my account only or write permissions or any other 'gotcha'? I am having a hard time coming up with a smooth solution that won't break everything and cause me to have mega duplicates or access issues. I would prefer not to do any xml library file editing if possible. Am I dreaming? Thanks for help.

    Read the article

  • Explorer.exe not starting after login on Windows Server 2003 (Terminal Services and console)

    - by Pepperoni Icecream
    When users login to a Windows Server 2003 R2 running Terminal Services they have a blank desktop. Upon inspection, explorer.exe is not running. When I login as administrator, using either RDP or to the console, I am having the same issue. I can pull up the taskman and start explorer.exe manually. I have another Terminal Server setup exactly the same way (same apps, settings, GPO, etc . . .) the only difference is we deployed Symantec Endpoint Client 11.0.5 on Friday. For some reason the working Terminal Server is still on 11.0.4, but the suspect server received the 11.0.5 client upgrade. I checked the eventviewer for any relevant explorer.exe entries to no avail. It seems that if SEP is preventing explorer.exe from starting at login it would do the same for the domain admin starting explorer.exe from the taskman. I disabled the SEP client and services on the server and issued smc -stop and tried logging in again. Still no explorer.exe. So I'm not sure if the client upgrade is relevant but it is worth mentioning since that was the last system change. The 2 servers are members of a NLB group. I took the bad terminal server out of the group until the issue is resolved. Actually stopped the host using NLB manager Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Apache directive for authenticated users?

    - by Alex Leach
    Using Apache 2.2, I would like to use mod_rewrite to redirect un-authenticated users to use https, if they are on http.. Is there a directive or condition one can test for whether a user is (not) authenticated? For example, I could have set up the restricted /foo location on my server:- <Location "/foo/"> Order deny,allow # Deny everyone, until authenticated... Deny from all # Authentication mechanism AuthType Basic AuthName "Members only" # AuthBasicProvider ... # ... Other authentication stuff here. # Users must be valid. Require valid-user # Logged-in users authorised to view child URLs: Satisfy any # If not SSL, respond with HTTP-redirect RewriteCond ${HTTPS} off RewriteRule /foo/?(.*)$ https://${SERVER_NAME}/foo/$2 [R=301,L] # SSL enforcement. SSLOptions FakeBasicAuth StrictRequire SSLRequireSSL SSLRequire %{SSL_CIPHER_USEKEYSIZE} >= 128 </Location> The problem here is that every file, in every subfolder, will be encrypted. This is quite unnecessary, but I see no reason to disallow it. What I would like is the RewriteRule to only be triggered during authentication. If a user is already authorised to view a folder, then I don't want the RewriteRule to be triggered. Is this possible? EDIT: I am not using any front-end HTML here. This is only using Apache's built-in directory browsing interface and its in-built authentication mechanisms. My <Directory> config is: <Directory ~ "/foo/"> Order allow,deny Allow from all AllowOverride None Options +Indexes +FollowSymLinks +Includes +MultiViews IndexOptions +FancyIndexing IndexOptions +XHTML IndexOptions NameWidth=* IndexOptions +TrackModified IndexOptions +SuppressHTMLPreamble IndexOptions +FoldersFirst IndexOptions +IgnoreCase IndexOptions Type=text/html </Directory>

    Read the article

  • Flushing iptables broke my pipe, how can I save my instance?

    - by Niels
    I was setting up my iptables when I performed a iptables -F and my ssh pipe broke. This is the last output of my session: root@alfapaints:~# iptables -L Chain INPUT (policy DROP) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW,ESTABLISHED tcp dpt:2222 ACCEPT tcp -- li465-68.members.linode.com anywhere state NEW,ESTABLISHED tcp dpt:nrpe ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:9200 state NEW,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http state NEW,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp spt:domain Chain FORWARD (policy DROP) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state ESTABLISHED tcp spt:2222 ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state ESTABLISHED tcp spt:nrpe ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp spt:9200 state ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp spt:http state ESTABLISHED ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:domain root@alfapaints:~# iptables -F Write failed: Broken pipe I tested my connection just before and I was able to connect with ssh. Now I did a nmap scan and not a single port is open anymore. I know my VPS is running on VMWare ESXi, could a reboot help? Or if not could I attach and mount the disk to another vm to save the data? Does anybody have some advise? And maybe an explanation what happend or what could have cause my pipe to break? ps: I didn't save my rules on the config directories of iptables. But used a file I stored in ~/rules.config to apply my rules like this: iptables-restore < rules.config So probably a reboot would help? Thanks a lot in advance.

    Read the article

  • A tiered approach to cloning linux partitons

    - by Djurdjura
    I'm looking at a strategy for cloning Linux (root) partitions without having to use a Live CD. Literature suggests rightly that the source and target partitions must be umounted to be able to get a clean clone. This assumes that you need to use a LiveCD. I was wondering if instead of requiring a LiveCD, if using a 3rd partition that would emulate the LiveCD functionality, if we can't achieve the same functionality. In other words, at a high level a system with 3 partitions (all bootable): Rescue Partition (LiveCD emulation) Running Partition (Source) Backup Partition (Destination) All 3 partitions are LVMS. When it's time to clone the source partition to the backup (destination) partition, we would boot to the rescue partition, unmount the other 2 partitions (is it required?), run disk check on the source, copy to the destination (dd or simple copy to avoid replicating the defragmentation from the source), run disk check on the destination partition, update Grub menu list to force boot from either partition, and reboot into that partition. My question, is it an approach that you'd recommend? MBR in all this? Any gotchas or extra checks required? Thanks, D. PS. On recommendation from members, posting here instead of stackoverflow.com.

    Read the article

  • Database types for customer analytics

    - by Drewdavid
    I am exploring a paid solution to start providing better embedded, dashboard-style analytics information to our website customers/account holders, but would like to also offer an in-house development option to our team. The more equipped I am with specifics (such as the subject of this question), the better the adoption rate from the team (or so I have found), regardless of the path we choose Would anyone care to summarize a couple of options for a fast and scalable database type through which we would provide the following: • Daily pageviews to a users account pages (users have between 1 and 1000 pages) • Some calculated/compounded metrics (such as conversion rate, i.e. certain page type viewed to contact form thank you page ratio) • We have about 1,500 members (will need room to grow); the number of concurrently logged in users will for the question's sake be 50 I ask because our developer has balked at providing this level of "over time" granularity (i.e. daily) due to the number of space it would take up in a MYSQL database To avoid a downvote I have asked specifically for more than one option, realizing that different people will have different solutions. I will make amendments to my question if so guided by answering parties Thank you for sharing your valued answers :)

    Read the article

  • sudo or acl or setuid/setgid ?

    - by Xavier Maillard
    Hi, for a reason I do not really understand, everyone wants sudo for all and everything. At work we even have as many entries as there are way to read a logfile (head/tail/cat/more, ...). I think, sudo is defeating here. I'd rather use a mix of setgid/setuid directories and add ACL here and there but I really need to know what are the best practices before starting up. Our servers have %admin, %production, %dba, %users -i.e many groups and many users. Each service (mysql, apache, ...) has its own way to install privileges but members of the %production group must be able to consult configuration file or even log files. There is still the solution to add them into the right groups (mysql...) and set the good permission. But I do not want to usermod all users, I do not want to modify standards permissions since it could change after each upgrade. On the other hand, setting acls and/or mixing setuid/setgid on directories is something I could easily do without "defacing" the standard distribution. What do you think about this ? Taking the mysql example, that would look like this: setfacl d:g:production:rx,d:other::---,g:production:rx,other::--- /var/log/mysql /etc/mysql Do you think this is good practise or should I definetely usermod -G mysql and play with standard permissions system ? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Are there cloud network drives that let users lock files or mark them as "in use"?

    - by Brandon Craig Rhodes
    Having spent several hours reading about the features and limitations of services like DropBox and Jungle Disk and the hundreds of competitors they seem to have (as though everyone with an AWS account these days goes ahead and writes a file sharing application just for fun), I have yet to find one that would let a team of people at a small business collaborate without stepping all over each other's toes. At a small business there are often many small documents per project — estimates, contracts, project plans, budgets — and team members frequently have to open and edit them, with all sorts of problems happening if two people edit a file at once. Even if a sharing service is smart enough to keep both versions of the file created, most small-business software (like word processors, spreadsheets, estimating software, or billing systems) has no way to compare — much less to merge! — the changes in two rival versions of a file that two people edited at the same time without each other's knowledge. So, my question: are their cloud-based file sharing solutions that not only provide a virtual network drive that people can access, but that also let users lock files — even if it's not a real lock but just a flag or indicator — that could possibly prevent remote workers from both editing the same file at once? Having one person wait for another person to finish editing is a very, very small inconvenience compared to the hour or more than it can take to compare two estimates by hand until you find and resolve the rival changes. Given this fact, I am surprised that almost none of the popular file sharing solutions seem to recognize this problem and provide some solution! Does anyone know of a service that does?

    Read the article

  • How to setup Mac server to use two gateways

    - by Brady
    I recently asked this question: How to set Mac server to use different Gateway for internet bound traffic The answer given works but has presented me with another issue that I didnt make clear in that question. Here is my network layout as it stands: At the moment outside staff members use some services on the existing internet 1 link. Those services are hosted by the Mac server. If I change the gateway of the Mac server to the second modem those outside staff lose visabilty on those services. Now I dont know how to go about solving this issue. I want the second link to be used when the Mac server goes to rsync data offsite but everything else use link one. How do I do this? Thanks Scott EDIT: This has been resolved by setting the default gateway on the Mac server to 192.168.1.254 Thus leaving everything on the network as it was before. but to get the Mac server to use the other link for rsync I've added a route to the Mac server to route traffic to the rsync server through the second gateway. sudo route add -net {server IP's}/{Netmask} 192.168.1.1 I've awarded the answer to gravyface for pointing me to a post on how to make this route persistant in Mac

    Read the article

  • Restrict SSH user to connection from one machine

    - by Jonathan
    During set-up of a home server (running Kubuntu 10.04), I created an admin user for performing administrative tasks that may require an unmounted home. This user has a home directory on the root partition of the box. The machine has an internet-facing SSH server, and I have restricted the set of users that can connect via SSH, but I would like to restrict it further by making admin only accessible from my laptop (or perhaps only from the local 192.168.1.0/24 range). I currently have only an AllowGroups ssh-users with myself and admin as members of the ssh-users group. What I want is something that works like you may expect this setup to work (but it doesn't): $ groups jonathan ... ssh-users $ groups admin ... ssh-restricted-users $ cat /etc/ssh/sshd_config ... AllowGroups ssh-users [email protected].* ... Is there a way to do this? I have also tried this, but it did not work (admin could still log in remotely): AllowUsers [email protected].* * AllowGroups ssh-users with admin a member of ssh-users. I would also be fine with only allowing admin to log in with a key, and disallowing password logins, but I could find no general setting for sshd; there is a setting that requires root logins to use a key, but not for general users.

    Read the article

  • Map FTP folder to folder on different FTP server

    - by jolt
    In my team we work a lot with FTP. We upload and download files from several different servers daily. Currently every member of the team manages access credentials to each FTP server locally on their own machine. I am looking for a way to set up a central FTP server that we can connect to, and from there, navigate to folders that each represent one of the other FTP servers that we connect to daily. Something like this: In-house central FTP server: |- FolderA --> server A root folder |- FolderB --> server B root folder |- FolderC --> server C root folder A setup like this, would mean that we can manage access credentials on the central FTP server, and team members would only need to have the access credentials to the central FTP server, and from there they could navigate to the other servers through these "virtual" folders. We could potentially develop our own custom FTP server that just forward requests to the remote FTP servers, but i feel like something like this (or something similar) would already have been done. So I'm looking for pointers that could help us find software for Windows that could help us to simplify our current setup. Thank you! Similar (unanswered) question here: FTP management server

    Read the article

  • How do I make ESXi 5.0 to shutdown virtual machines when the physical power button is pushed?

    - by Pawel Sawicki
    I have a home NAS/DLNA server built out of an HP Micro Server with the HP branded VMware ESXi 5.0.0 build-623860 (free license) installed. Being a home media center I'd like it to be "manageable" by all my household members. This requires that it needs to be powered on an off (including all the VMs inside) by anybody with the physical access to the server by simply pressing the power button on the chassis. The "startup" part is easy to obtain - all I had to do was to configure the startup/shutdown policy: Once the server powers up, all VMs start as well and that's exactly what I need. Well.. it did work up until 5.0.0U1, but that's a different story: http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2012/03/free-esxi-hypervisor-auto-start-breaks-with-50-update-1.html Unfortunately, pressing the power button doesn't gracefully shutdown the guest machines - they are terminated instead. If I run the "shut down" command from the vSphere Client interface guests are powered off. I'd like to get the same end result when the physical power button is switched. I've poked around a bit on the ESXi server. There's a "/sbin/shutdown.sh" script that seemed to do exactly what I need... but after trying it does exactly what the power off button. The "/etc/inittab" contains an entry for the "shutdown" level but I suppose it's not hooked to the power button. I can't find any acpi related configuration, neither do I know what exactly is executed when the power button is pressed. Does anybody have a clue how can I make the VMs shutdown automatically when the physical power switch is pressed to turn of the computer?

    Read the article

  • Why is my global security group being filtered out of my logon token?

    - by Jay Michaud
    While investigating the effects of filtered tokens on my file permissions, I noticed that one of my global security groups is being filtered in addition to the regular system-defined filtered groups. My Active Directory environment is a single-domain forest on the Windows Server 2003 functional level. I'll call the domain "mydomain.example.com". I am logged onto a Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition machine (not a domain controller) as a member of the "MYDOMAIN\Domain Admins" group and the "MYDOMAIN\MySecurityGroup" global security group (among others). When I run "whoami /groups" from an elevated command prompt, I see the full list of groups to which my account belongs as expected. When I run "whoami /groups" from a regular, non-elevated command prompt, I see the same list of groups, but the following groups are described as "Group used for deny only". BUILTIN\Administrators MYDOMAIN\Schema Admins MYDOMAIN\Offer Remote Assistance Helpers MYDOMAIN\MySecurityGroup Numbers 1 through 3 above are expected based on Microsoft documentation; number 4 is not. The "MYDOMAIN\MySecurityGroup" global security group is a group that I created. It contains three non-built-in global security groups, and these security groups contain only non-built-in user accounts. (That is, I created all of the accounts and groups that are members of the "MYDOMAIN\MySecurityGroup" global security group.) There are other, similar groups of which my account is a member that are not being filtered out of my logon token, and this group is not granted any specific user rights in the security settings of this computer or in Group Policy. What would cause this one group to be filtered out of my logon token?

    Read the article

  • Are there cloud network drives that let users lock files or mark them as "in use"?

    - by Brandon Craig Rhodes
    Having spent several hours reading about the features and limitations of services like DropBox and Jungle Disk and the hundreds of competitors they seem to have (as though everyone with an AWS account these days goes ahead and writes a file sharing application just for fun), I have yet to find one that would let a team of people at a small business collaborate without stepping all over each other's toes. At a small business there are often many small documents per project — estimates, contracts, project plans, budgets — and team members frequently have to open and edit them, with all sorts of problems happening if two people edit a file at once. Even if a sharing service is smart enough to keep both versions of the file created, most small-business software (like word processors, spreadsheets, estimating software, or billing systems) has no way to compare — much less to merge! — the changes in two rival versions of a file that two people edited at the same time without each other's knowledge. So, my question: are their cloud-based file sharing solutions that not only provide a virtual network drive that people can access, but that also let users lock files — even if it's not a real lock but just a flag or indicator — that could possibly prevent remote workers from both editing the same file at once? Having one person wait for another person to finish editing is a very, very small inconvenience compared to the hour or more than it can take to compare two estimates by hand until you find and resolve the rival changes. Given this fact, I am surprised that almost none of the popular file sharing solutions seem to recognize this problem and provide some solution! Does anyone know of a service that does?

    Read the article

  • Allowing XP Home Clients To Access Active Directory Printers

    - by Sean M
    My school's network is based on Active Directory on Windows Server 2003 servers. Most of the computers in the school are members of the domain. However, we also acquired a passel of netbooks that are running Windows XP Home (as netbooks tend to), and we're trying to make those useful. The netbooks are made available to students by check-out, so none of them are dedicated to a specific user. I only want to allow the netbooks to do two significant network activities: to access the Internet (this is working acceptably well so far), and to print to one or more printers on the network. That second one is where trouble starts. I'm trying to find a way to allow the XP Home clients to access those Active Directory printers. All the solutions that I can come up with right now are expensive, ugly, or both - for example, changing the OS on the netbooks (even with imaging, that would take a lot of my time) or making sure that the user account on each netbook has a matching account in Active Directory with permissions for printing (invites security/maintainability disaster). Are there any elegant solutions? Failing that, what's the best ugly solution for allowing my students to print from the netbooks?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213  | Next Page >