Search Results

Search found 13240 results on 530 pages for 'privacy and security'.

Page 21/530 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • Trying to run WCF web service on non-domain VM, Security Errors

    - by NealWalters
    Am I in a Catch-22 situation here? My goal is to take a WCF service that I inherited, and run it on a VM and test it by calling it from my desktop PC. The VM is in a workgroup, and not in the company's domain. Basically, we need more test environments, ideally one per developer (we may have 2 to 4 people that need this). Thus the idea of the VM was that each developer could have his own web server that somewhat matches or real environment (where we actually have two websites, an external/exposed and internal). [Using VS2010 .NET 4.0] In the internal service, each method was decorated with this attribute: [OperationBehavior(Impersonation = ImpersonationOption.Required)] I'm still researching why this was needed. I think it's because a webapp calls the "internal" service, and either a) we need the credentials of the user, or b) we may doing some PrinciplePermission.Demands to see if the user is in a group. My interest is creating some ConsoleTest programs or UnitTest programs. I changed to allowed like this: [OperationBehavior(Impersonation = ImpersonationOption.Allowed)] because I was getting this error in trying to view the .svc in the browser: The contract operation 'EditAccountFamily' requires Windows identity for automatic impersonation. A Windows identity that represents the caller is not provided by binding ('WSHttpBinding','http://tempuri.org/') for contract ('IAdminService','http://tempuri.org/'. I don't get that error with the original bindings look like this: However, I believe I need to turn off this security since the web service is not on the domain. I tend to get these errors in the client: 1) The request for security token could not be satisfied because authentication failed - as an InnerException of "SecurityNegotiation was unhandled". or 2) The caller was not authenticated by the service as an InnerException of "SecurityNegotiation was unhandled". So can I create some configuration of code and web.config that will allow each developer to work on his own VM? Or must I join the VM to the domain? The number of permutations seems near endless. I've started to create a Word.doc that says what to do with each error, but now I'm in the catch-22 where I'm stuck. Thanks, Neal Server Bindings: <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="wsHttpEndpointBinding" maxBufferPoolSize="2147483647" maxReceivedMessageSize="500000000"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="2147483647" maxStringContentLength="2147483647" maxArrayLength="2147483647" maxBytesPerRead="2147483647" maxNameTableCharCount="2147483647" /> <!-- <security mode="None" /> This is one thing I tried --> <security> <message clientCredentialType="Windows" /> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="ABC.AdminService.AdminServiceBehavior"> <!-- To avoid disclosing metadata information, set the value below to false and remove the metadata endpoint above before deployment --> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" /> <!-- To receive exception details in faults for debugging purposes, set the value below to true. Set to false before deployment to avoid disclosing exception information --> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> <serviceCredentials> </serviceCredentials> <!--<serviceAuthorization principalPermissionMode="UseAspNetRoles" roleProviderName="AspNetWindowsTokenRoleProvider"/>--> <serviceAuthorization principalPermissionMode="UseWindowsGroups" impersonateCallerForAllOperations="true" /> </behavior> <behavior name="ABC.AdminService.IAdminServiceTransportBehavior"> <!-- To avoid disclosing metadata information, set the value below to false and remove the metadata endpoint above before deployment --> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" /> <!-- To receive exception details in faults for debugging purposes, set the value below to true. Set to false before deployment to avoid disclosing exception information --> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="false" /> <serviceCredentials> <clientCertificate> <authentication certificateValidationMode="PeerTrust" /> </clientCertificate> <serviceCertificate findValue="WCfServer" storeLocation="LocalMachine" storeName="My" x509FindType="FindBySubjectName" /> </serviceCredentials> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <serviceHostingEnvironment multipleSiteBindingsEnabled="true" /> CLIENT: <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="WSHttpBinding_IAdminService" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" transactionFlow="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" useDefaultWebProxy="true" allowCookies="false"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <reliableSession ordered="true" inactivityTimeout="00:10:00" enabled="false" /> <security mode="Message"> <transport clientCredentialType="Windows" proxyCredentialType="None" realm="" /> <message clientCredentialType="Windows" negotiateServiceCredential="true" algorithmSuite="Default" /> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <client> <endpoint address="http://192.168.159.132/EC_AdminService/AdminService.svc" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="WSHttpBinding_IAdminService" contract="svcRef.IAdminService" name="WSHttpBinding_IAdminService"> <identity> <dns value="localhost" /> </identity> </endpoint> </client> </system.serviceModel>

    Read the article

  • WCF with No security

    - by james.ingham
    Hi all, I've got a WCF service setup which I can consume and use as intendid... but only on the same machine. I'm looking to get this working over multiple computers and I'm not fussed about the security. However when I set (client side) the security to = none, I get a InvalidOperationException: The service certificate is not provided for target 'http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8731/Design_Time_Addresses/WcfServiceLibrary/ManagementService/'. Specify a service certificate in ClientCredentials. So I'm left with: <security mode="Message"> <message clientCredentialType="None" negotiateServiceCredential="false" algorithmSuite="Default" /> </security> But this gives me another InvalidOperationException: The service certificate is not provided for target 'http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8731/Design_Time_Addresses/WcfServiceLibrary/ManagementService/'. Specify a service certificate in ClientCredentials. Why would I have to provide a certificate if security was turned off? Server app config: <system.serviceModel> <services> <service name="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.CheckoutService" behaviorConfiguration="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.CheckoutServiceBehavior"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress = "http://xxx:8731/Design_Time_Addresses/WcfServiceLibrary/CheckoutService/" /> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint address ="" binding="wsDualHttpBinding" contract="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.ICheckoutService"> <identity> <dns value="localhost"/> </identity> </endpoint> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange"/> </service> <service name="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.ManagementService" behaviorConfiguration="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.ManagementServiceBehavior"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress = "http://xxx:8731/Design_Time_Addresses/WcfServiceLibrary/ManagementService/" /> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint address ="" binding="wsDualHttpBinding" contract="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.IManagementService"> <identity> <dns value="localhost"/> </identity> </endpoint> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange"/> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.CheckoutServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="True"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="False" /> <serviceThrottling maxConcurrentCalls="100" maxConcurrentSessions="50" maxConcurrentInstances="50" /> </behavior> <behavior name="Server.WcfServiceLibrary.ManagementServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="True"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="False" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> Client app config: <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <wsDualHttpBinding> <binding name="WSDualHttpBinding_IManagementService" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:00:10" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" transactionFlow="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" useDefaultWebProxy="true"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <reliableSession ordered="true" inactivityTimeout="00:10:00" /> <security mode="Message"> <message clientCredentialType="Windows" negotiateServiceCredential="true" algorithmSuite="Default" /> </security> </binding> </wsDualHttpBinding> </bindings> <client> <endpoint address="http://xxx:8731/Design_Time_Addresses/WcfServiceLibrary/ManagementService/" binding="wsDualHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="WSDualHttpBinding_IManagementService" contract="ServiceReference.IManagementService" name="WSDualHttpBinding_IManagementService"> <identity> <dns value="localhost" /> </identity> </endpoint> </client> </system.serviceModel> Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why can any user read the content in my homedir?

    - by Digiplace
    Why is it that the default setting makes it possible for user A to look in the homedir of user B and vice versa? And furthermore..that user can not only look into the homedir of another user, he can also open any document he wants to. It feels very insecure to me. There should be more privacy for users. I know how to prevent this situation, but it puzzles me why this should be possible in the first place.

    Read the article

  • Data Source Security Part 1

    - by Steve Felts
    I’ve written a couple of articles on how to store data source security credentials using the Oracle wallet.  I plan to write a few articles on the various types of security available to WebLogic Server (WLS) data sources.  There are more options than you might think! There have been several enhancements in this area in WLS 10.3.6.  There are a couple of more enhancements planned for release WLS 12.1.2 that I will include here for completeness.  This isn’t intended as a teaser.  If you call your Oracle support person, you can get them now as minor patches to WLS 10.3.6.   The current security documentation is scattered in a few places, has a few incorrect statements, and is missing a few topics.  It also seems that the knowledge of how to apply some of these features isn’t written down.  The goal of these articles is to talk about WLS data source security in a unified way and to introduce some approaches to using the available features.  Introduction to WebLogic Data Source Security Options By default, you define a single database user and password for a data source.  You can store it in the data source descriptor or make use of the Oracle wallet.  This is a very simple and efficient approach to security.  All of the connections in the connection pool are owned by this user and there is no special processing when a connection is given out.  That is, it’s a homogeneous connection pool and any request can get any connection from a security perspective (there are other aspects like affinity).  Regardless of the end user of the application, all connections in the pool use the same security credentials to access the DBMS.   No additional information is needed when you get a connection because it’s all available from the data source descriptor (or wallet). java.sql.Connection conn =  mydatasource.getConnection(); Note: You can enter the password as a name-value pair in the Properties field (this not permitted for production environments) or you can enter it in the Password field of the data source descriptor. The value in the Password field overrides any password value defined in the Properties passed to the JDBC Driver when creating physical database connections. It is recommended that you use the Password attribute in place of the password property in the properties string because the Password value is encrypted in the configuration file (stored as the password-encrypted attribute in the jdbc-driver-params tag in the module file) and is hidden in the administration console.  The Properties and Password fields are located on the administration console Data Source creation wizard or Data Source Configuration tab. The JDBC API can also be used to programmatically specify a database user name and password as in the following.  java.sql.Connection conn = mydatasource.getConnection(“user”, “password”); According to the JDBC specification, it’s supposed to take a database user and associated password but different vendors implement this differently.  WLS, by default, treats this as an application server user and password.  The pair is authenticated to see if it’s a valid user and that user is used for WLS security permission checks.  By default, the user is then mapped to a database user and password using the data source credential mapper, so this API sort of follows the specification but database credentials are one-step removed from the application code.  More details and the rationale are described later. While the default approach is simple, it does mean that only one database user is doing all of the work.  You can’t figure out who actually did the update and you can’t restrict SQL operations by who is running the operation, at least at the database level.   Any type of per-user logic will need to be in the application code instead of having the database do it.  There are various WLS data source features that can be configured to provide some per-user information about the operations to the database. WebLogic Data Source Security Options This table describes the features available for WebLogic data sources to configure database security credentials and a brief description.  It also captures information about the compatibility of these features with one another. Feature Description Can be used with Can’t be used with User authentication (default) Default getConnection(user, password) behavior – validate the input and use the user/password in the descriptor. Set client identifier Proxy Session, Identity pooling, Use database credentials Use database credentials Instead of using the credential mapper, use the supplied user and password directly. Set client identifier, Proxy session, Identity pooling User authentication, Multi Data Source Set Client Identifier Set a client identifier property associated with the connection (Oracle and DB2 only). Everything Proxy Session Set a light-weight proxy user associated with the connection (Oracle-only). Set client identifier, Use database credentials Identity pooling, User authentication Identity pooling Heterogeneous pool of connections owned by specified users. Set client identifier, Use database credentials Proxy session, User authentication, Labeling, Multi-datasource, Active GridLink Note that all of these features are available with both XA and non-XA drivers. Currently, the Proxy Session and Use Database Credentials options are on the Oracle tab of the Data Source Configuration tab of the administration console (even though the Use Database Credentials feature is not just for Oracle databases – oops).  The rest of the features are on the Identity tab of the Data Source Configuration tab in the administration console (plan on seeing them all in one place in the future). The subsequent articles will describe these features in more detail.  Keep referring back to this table to see the big picture.

    Read the article

  • Invalid or expired security context token in WCF web service

    - by Damian
    All, I have a WCF web service (let's called service "B") hosted under IIS using a service account (VM, Windows 2003 SP2). The service exposes an endpoint that use WSHttpBinding with the default values except for maxReceivedMessageSize, maxBufferPoolSize, maxBufferSize and some of the time outs that have been increased. The web service has been load tested using Visual Studio Load Test framework with around 800 concurrent users and successfully passed all tests with no exceptions being thrown. The proxy in the unit test has been created from configuration. There is a sharepoint application that use the Office Sharepoint Server Search service to call web services "A" and "B". The application will get data from service "A" to create a request that will be sent to service "B". The response coming from service "B" is indexed for search. The proxy is created programmatically using the ChannelFactory. When service "A" takes less than 10 minutes, the calls to service "B" are successfull. But when service "A" takes more time (~20 minutes) the calls to service "B" throw the following exception: Exception Message: An unsecured or incorrectly secured fault was received from the other party. See the inner FaultException for the fault code and detail Inner Exception Message: The message could not be processed. This is most likely because the action 'namespace/OperationName' is incorrect or because the message contains an invalid or expired security context token or because there is a mismatch between bindings. The security context token would be invalid if the service aborted the channel due to inactivity. To prevent the service from aborting idle sessions prematurely increase the Receive timeout on the service endpoint's binding. The binding settings are the same, the time in both client server and web service server are synchronize with the Windows Time service, same time zone. When i look at the server where web service "B" is hosted i can see the following security errors being logged: Source: Security Category: Logon/Logoff Event ID: 537 User NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Logon Failure: Reason: An error occurred during logon Logon Type: 3 Logon Process: Kerberos Authentication Package: Kerberos Status code: 0xC000006D Substatus code: 0xC0000133 After reading some of the blogs online, the Status code means STATUS_LOGON_FAILURE and the substatus code means STATUS_TIME_DIFFERENCE_AT_DC. but i already checked both server and client clocks and they are syncronized. I also noticed that the security token seems to be cached somewhere in the client server because they have another process that calls the web service "B" using the same service account and successfully gets data the first time is called. Then they start the proccess to update the office sharepoint server search service indexes and it fails. Then if they called the first proccess again it will fail too. Has anyone experienced this type of problems or have any ideas? Regards, --Damian

    Read the article

  • Configuring a Context specific Tomcat Security Realm

    - by Andy Mc
    I am trying to get a context specific security Realm in Tomcat 6.0, but when I start Tomcat I get the following error: 09-Dec-2010 16:12:40 org.apache.catalina.startup.ContextConfig validateSecurityRoles INFO: WARNING: Security role name myrole used in an <auth-constraint> without being defined in a <security-role> I have created the following context.xml file: <Context debug="0" reloadable="true"> <Resource name="MyUserDatabase" type="org.apache.catalina.UserDatabase" description="User database that can be updated and saved" factory="org.apache.catalina.users.MemoryUserDatabaseFactory" pathname="conf/my-users.xml" /> <Realm className="org.apache.catalina.realm.UserDatabaseRealm" resourceName="MyUserDatabase"/> </Context> Created a file: my-users.xml which I have placed under WEB-INF/conf which contains the following: <tomcat-users> <role rolename="myrole"/> <user username="test" password="changeit" roles="myrole" /> </tomcat-users> Added the following lines to my web.xml file: <web-app ...> ... <security-constraint> <web-resource-collection> <web-resource-name>Entire Application</web-resource-name> <url-pattern>/*</url-pattern> </web-resource-collection> <auth-constraint> <role-name>myrole</role-name> </auth-constraint> </security-constraint> <login-config> <auth-method>BASIC</auth-method> </login-config> ... </web-app> But seem to get the error wherever I put conf/my-users.xml. Do I have to specify an explicit PATH in the pathname or is it relative to somewhere? Ideally I would like to have it packaged up as part of my WAR file. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • What makes you trust that a piece of open source software is not malicious?

    - by Daniel DiPaolo
    We developers are in a unique position when it comes to the ability to not only be skeptical about the capabilities provided by open source software, but to actively analyze the code since it is freely available. In fact, one may even argue that open source software developers have a social responsibility to do so to contribute to the community. But at what point do you as a developer say, "I better take a look at what this is doing before I trust using it" for any given thing? Is it a matter of trusting code with your personal information? Does it depend on the source you're getting it from? What spurred this question on was a post on Hacker News to a javascript bookmarklet that supposedly tells you how "exposed" your information on Facebook is as well as recommending some fixes. I thought for a second "I'd rather not start blindly running this code over all my (fairly locked down) Facebook information so let me check it out". The bookmarklet is simple enough, but it calls another javascript function which at the time (but not anymore) was highly compressed and undecipherable. That's when I said "nope, not gonna do it". So even though I could have verified the original uncompressed javascript from the Github site and even saved a local copy to verify and then run without hitting their server, I wasn't going to. It's several thousand lines and I'm not a total javascript guru to begin with. Yet, folks are using it anyway. Even (supposedly) bright developers. What makes them trust the script? Did they all scrutinize it line by line? Do they know the guy personally and trust him not to do anything bad? Do they just take his word? What makes you trust that a piece of open source software is not malicious?

    Read the article

  • Why not open a PDF file in the browser but first save it to the harddisk?

    - by Lernkurve
    Question Is it correct that saving a PDF to the harddisk first, and then opening it from there with some PDF reader (not the browser) is safer than opening it directly with the browser plugin? My current understanding I know that the PDF browser plugin might have a security leak and a manipulated PDF file might exploit it and get access to the user's computer. I recently heard that saving the PDF file frist and opening it then was safer. I don't understand why that should be safer. Can anyone explain? My logic would suggest that a manipulated file started from the harddisk can just as well exploit a security leak, say for instance, of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

    Read the article

  • Upgrading from 12.10 to 13.04 -> dpkg: error processing sudo (--configure)

    - by Korrigan Nagirrok
    Here's the deal and reason I'm asking for your help. Last night I went on upgrading my Xubuntu 12.10 installation to 13.04, so at tty1 I run the command sudo do-release-upgrade and everything seemed to went well except that after rebooting and when I run sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade I get this error: sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring Release.gpg Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates Release.gpg Hit http://dl.google.com stable Release.gpg Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports Release.gpg Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring Release Hit http://archive.canonical.com raring Release.gpg Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring Release.gpg Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates Release Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com raring Release.gpg Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports Release Hit http://dl.google.com stable Release Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/main Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/restricted Sources Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com raring Release Hit http://archive.canonical.com raring Release Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring Release.gpg Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/universe Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/multiverse Sources Hit http://dl.google.com stable/main i386 Packages Get:1 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security Release.gpg [933 B] Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/main i386 Packages Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com raring/main Sources Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring Release Hit http://archive.canonical.com raring/partner i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/universe i386 Packages Hit http://extras.ubuntu.com raring/main i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring Release Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/main Translation-en Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main Sources Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/multiverse Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/restricted Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/universe Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/main Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/restricted Sources Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/universe Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/multiverse Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/main i386 Packages Hit http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/universe i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/multiverse i386 Packages Ign http://dl.google.com stable/main Translation-en_US Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/main Translation-en Ign http://archive.canonical.com raring/partner Translation-en_US Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com raring/main Translation-en_US Ign http://dl.google.com stable/main Translation-en Ign http://archive.canonical.com raring/partner Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/multiverse Translation-en Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com raring/main Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/restricted Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/universe Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/main Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/restricted Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/universe Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/multiverse Sources Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/main i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/restricted i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/universe i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/multiverse i386 Packages Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/main Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/multiverse Translation-en Get:2 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security Release [40.8 kB] Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/restricted Translation-en Hit http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/universe Translation-en Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main Translation-en_US Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main Translation-en Get:3 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/main Sources [2,109 B] Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main Translation-en_US Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net raring/main Translation-en Get:4 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/restricted Sources [14 B] Get:5 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/universe Sources [14 B] Get:6 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/multiverse Sources [14 B] Get:7 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/main i386 Packages [3,670 B] Get:8 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/restricted i386 Packages [14 B] Get:9 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/universe i386 Packages [2,824 B] Get:10 http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/multiverse i386 Packages [14 B] Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/main Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/multiverse Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/restricted Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring/universe Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/main Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/multiverse Translation-en_US Hit http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/main Translation-en Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/restricted Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-updates/universe Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/main Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/multiverse Translation-en_US Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/restricted Translation-en_US Hit http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/multiverse Translation-en Ign http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com raring-backports/universe Translation-en_US Hit http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/restricted Translation-en Hit http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/universe Translation-en Ign http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/main Translation-en_US Ign http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/multiverse Translation-en_US Ign http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/restricted Translation-en_US Ign http://security.ubuntu.com raring-security/universe Translation-en_US Fetched 50.4 kB in 6s (7,454 B/s) Reading package lists... Done Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/373 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y dpkg: error processing sudo (--configure): Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should reinstall it before attempting configuration. No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of ubuntu-minimal: ubuntu-minimal depends on sudo; however: Package sudo is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing ubuntu-minimal (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already Errors were encountered while processing: sudo ubuntu-minimal E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) I've tried everything I thought logical, like sudo dpkg --configure -a dpkg: error processing sudo (--configure): Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should reinstall it before attempting configuration. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of ubuntu-minimal: ubuntu-minimal depends on sudo; however: Package sudo is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing ubuntu-minimal (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: sudo ubuntu-minimal sudo apt-get install -f Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/373 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. dpkg: error processing sudo (--configure): Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should reinstall it before attempting configuration. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of ubuntu-minimal: ubuntu-minimal depends on sudo; however: Package sudo is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing ubuntu-minimal (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already Errors were encountered while processing: sudo ubuntu-minimal E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) Can someone help me, please. Edit: Here's some more info that could be of help for anyone. The output of apt-cache policy linux-image-generic-pae linux-generic-pae is linux-image-generic-pae: Installed: (none) Candidate: 3.8.0.19.35 Version table: 3.8.0.19.35 0 500 http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ raring/main i386 Packages linux-generic-pae: Installed: (none) Candidate: 3.8.0.19.35 Version table: 3.8.0.19.35 0 500 http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ raring/main i386 Packages

    Read the article

  • Steps to take when technical staff leave

    - by Tom O'Connor
    How do you handle the departure process when privileged or technical staff resign / get fired? Do you have a checklist of things to do to ensure the continuing operation / security of the company's infrastructure? I'm trying to come up with a nice canonical list of things that my colleagues should do when I leave (I resigned a week ago, so I've got a month to tidy up and GTFO). So far I've got: Escort them off the premises Delete their email Inbox (set all mail to forward to a catch-all) Delete their SSH keys on server(s) Delete their mysql user account(s) ... So, what's next. What have I forgotten to mention, or might be similarly useful? (endnote: Why is this off-topic? I'm a systems administrator, and this concerns continuing business security, this is definitely on-topic.)

    Read the article

  • Google Analytics - TOS section pertaining to privacy

    - by Eike Pierstorff
    The Google Analytics terms of service does do not allow to track "data that personally identifies an individual (such as a name, email address or billing information), or other data which can be reasonably linked to such information by Google". Does anybody have first-hand knowledge if this includes user ids which cannot be resolved by Google but can be linked to actual persons via an Analytics Users CRM system (e.g. a CRM linked to Analytics via API access) ? I used to think so, but if that where the case many ecommerce implementations would be illegal (since they store transactions id which can be linked to client's purchases). If anybody has insights about the intended meaning of the paragraph (preferably with a reliable source) it would be great if he/she could share :-)

    Read the article

  • How to Enable Do Not Track in Google Chrome for Increased Privacy

    - by Taylor Gibb
    The “Do Not Track” option is enabled by default in Windows 8’s Internet Explorer 10 and available in Firefox, Safari, and Opera. Notice one of the major browsers missing, like perhaps Chrome? Well it finally got the feature and we are here to show you how to enable it. 6 Ways Windows 8 Is More Secure Than Windows 7 HTG Explains: Why It’s Good That Your Computer’s RAM Is Full 10 Awesome Improvements For Desktop Users in Windows 8

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >