Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 243/869 | < Previous Page | 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250  | Next Page >

  • Google Docs iphone library error reporting

    - by phil harris
    I'm in the process of adding a Google Docs interface to my iPhone app, and I'm largely following the example in the GoogleDocs.m file from Tom Saxton's example app. The objective-c library I'm using is from http://code.google.com/p/gdata-objectivec-client/wiki/GDataObjCIntroduction The library file used is from gdata-objectivec-client-1.10.0.zip. This service:username:password method is a slight variant of the one found in the Saxton file GoogleDocs.m starting at line 351: - (void)service:(NSString *)username password:(NSString *)password { if(service == nil) { service = [[[GDataServiceGoogleDocs alloc] init] autorelease]; [service setUserAgent:s_strUserAgent]; [service setShouldCacheDatedData:NO]; [service setServiceShouldFollowNextLinks:NO]; (void)[service authenticateWithDelegate:self didAuthenticateSelector:@selector(ticket:authenticatedWithError:)]; } // update the username/password each time the service is requested if (username != nil && [username length] && password != nil && [password length]) [service setUserCredentialsWithUsername:username password:password]; else [service setUserCredentialsWithUsername:nil password:nil]; } // associated callback for service:username:password: method - (void)ticket:(GDataServiceTicket *)ticket authenticatedWithError:(NSError *)error { NSLog(@"%@",@"authenticatedWithError called"); if(error == nil) [self selectBackupRestore]; else { NSLog(@"error code(%d)", [error code]); NSLog(@"error domain(%d)", [error domain]); NSLog(@"localizedDescription(%@)", error.localizedDescription); NSLog(@"localizedFailureReason(%@)", error.localizedFailureReason); NSLog(@"localizedRecoveryOptions(%@)", error.localizedRecoveryOptions); NSLog(@"localizedRecoverySuggestion(%@)", error.localizedRecoverySuggestion); } } Please note the service:username:password method and the callback compile and run fine. The problem is that the callback is passing a non-nil NSError object. I added an NSLog() for every error reporting attribute of NSError and the (Xcode) log output of a test run is below. [Session started at 2010-05-27 12:27:16 -0700.] 2010-05-27 12:27:38.778 iFilebox[74596:207] authenticatedWithError called 2010-05-27 12:27:38.779 iFilebox[74596:207] error code(-1) 2010-05-27 12:27:38.780 iFilebox[74596:207] error domain(499324) 2010-05-27 12:27:38.781 iFilebox[74596:207] localizedDescription(Operation could not be completed. (com.google.GDataServiceDomain error -1.)) 2010-05-27 12:27:38.782 iFilebox[74596:207] localizedFailureReason((null)) 2010-05-27 12:27:38.782 iFilebox[74596:207] localizedRecoveryOptions((null)) 2010-05-27 12:27:38.783 iFilebox[74596:207] localizedRecoverySuggestion((null)) My essential question is in the error reporting. I was hoping the localizedDescription would be more specific of the error. All I get for the error code value is -1, and the only description of the error is "Operation could not be completed. (com.google.GDataServiceDomain error -1.". Not very helpful. Does anyone know what a GDataServiceDomain error -1 is? Where can I find a full list of all error codes returned, and a description of what they mean?

    Read the article

  • On a local network, are you able to password protect certain folders and how (in windows xp)?

    - by Derek
    I have a local network set up for my small office which consists of me, the manager, my wife, the secretary, and a few sales people/others. I would like to share passwords over the network and other such things privately to my wife, the secretary, but would not like the sales people and others to have access to it, yet I need the others to have access to other folders/documents that I'd like to share. How would I go about doing this if not by password? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How to you password protect a page with Wicket?

    - by Kane
    I want to password protect a webpage in Wicket so the user may only access it if he/she has logged in. I'd also like the page to show the login page, and then after logging in the original page the user was trying to get to. How is this done with wicket? I've already created a login page and extended the session class.

    Read the article

  • jquery validation plugin doesn't seem to work ....

    - by Pandiya Chendur
    asp.net mvc's Html.BeginForm() seems to work with jquery validation plugin but the validation plugin doesn't seem to work with a form which i ve added to a page.... This works, <% using (Html.BeginForm("Login", "Registration", FormMethod.Post, new { id = "Loginform" })) {%> <fieldset> <legend>Login</legend> <p> <label for="EmailId">EmailId:</label> <%= Html.TextBox("EmailId", null, new { @class = "text_box_height_14_width_150" })%> </p> <div class="status"></div> <p> <label for="Password">Password:</label> <%= Html.Password("Password",null, new { @class = "text_box_height_14_width_150" }) %> </p> <div class="status"></div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Login" id="login" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } %> But this doesn't work, <form id="Loginform" method="post" action="Registration/Login"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" style="border:none;"> <tr> <td width="12%">Email Id&nbsp;:&nbsp;</td><td width="15%"> <input id="EmailId" type="text" class="text_box_height_14_width_150 name="EmailId" /></td><td width="20%" class="status"></td> <td width="12%">Password&nbsp;:&nbsp;<td width="15%"><input id="Password" type="password" class="text_box_height_14_width_150 name="Password" /></td> <td width="20%" class="status"></td> <td width="5%"><input type="submit" value="Login" id="BtnLogin" /></td> </tr> </table> </form> and my jquery function has this, $(document).ready(function() { var validator = $("#Loginform").validate({ rules: { EmailId: "required", Password: { required: true, minlength: 6 } }, messages: { EmailId: "Enter your EMail ID", Password: { required: "Please Provide a password", rangelength: jQuery.format("Enter at least {0} characters") } }, // the errorPlacement has to take the table layout into account errorPlacement: function(error, element) { error.appendTo(element.parent().next()); }, // set this class to error-labels to indicate valid fields success: function(label) { // set &nbsp; as text for IE label.html("&nbsp;").addClass("checked"); } }); }); Any suggestion... Am i missing something?

    Read the article

  • Are parametrized calls/sanitization/escaping characters necessary for hashed password fields in SQL queries?

    - by Computerish
    When writing a login system for a website, it is standard to use some combination of parameterized calls, sanitizing the user input, and/or escaping special characters to prevent SQL injection attacks. Any good login system, however, should also hash (and possibly salt) every password before it goes into an SQL query, so is it still necessary to worry about SQL injection attacks in passwords? Doesn't a hash completely eliminate any possibility of an SQL injection attack on its own?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid the Windows (XP) Security Warning when launching a "DOS" command line within C#?

    - by Will Marcouiller
    This question is related to this initial question asked a little while ago. Now, that I have chosen the extracting tool, I'm iterating through a given in command line parameter directory and subdirectories to extract the compressed .zip files. private static void ExtractAll(DirectoryInfo _workingFolder) { if(_workingFolder == null) { Console.WriteLine("Répertoire inexistant."); return; } foreach (DirectoryInfo subFolder in _workingFolder.GetDirectories("*", SearchOption.AllDirectories)) foreach(FileInfo zippedFile in subFolder.GetFiles("*.zip", SearchOption.AllDirectories)) { if(zippedFile.Exists) { ProcessStartInfo task = new ProcessStartInfo(@".\Tools\7za.exe", string.Format("x {0}", zippedFile.FullName)); Process.Start(task); } } } But everytime I start a 7za process, the Windows Security Warning prompts. I would like to avoid such annoying behaviour, so here's my question: How to avoid the Windows (XP) Security Warning when launching a "DOS" command line within C#?

    Read the article

  • How do I set IP access / password restrictions in Apache?

    - by Mouthbreather
    I'd like to restrict access to my Rails app (running on Apache/Passenger) to just two IPs, but if the visitor doesn't fall into those two IPs, I would like for him/her to be prompted to enter a password that would allow any user with the proper credentials to access the site from anywhere. I am new to configuring Apache and would appreciate any hints. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to create a Mutex with security attribute to share resource from different application?

    - by Antony Tess
    How to create a Mutex with security attribute rigth to share resource from different application? In according with Microsoft SDK documentation the CreateMutex API accept as first parameter a SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES pointer. HANDLE WINAPI CreateMutex( __in LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpMutexAttributes, __in BOOL bInitialOwner, __in LPCTSTR lpName ); I want to create the rigth security attribute so only my application group can open the MUTEX and access to a specific resource (a file) where my application gruop read/write data operation. The target opertaing system are XP, Vista and Seven. The feature must working in both, administrator/standard user, login shenario.

    Read the article

  • Problem carrying Session over to other pages

    - by AAA
    I am able to login a user, but while processing to the next page (memebers area) I can't display any user info let alone print the $_SESSION[email]. I am not sure what's up. Below is the login code and the testing members are page. Login page: session_start(); //also in a real app you would get the id dynamically $sql = "select `email`, `password` from `accounts` where `email` = '$_POST[email]'"; $query = mysql_query($sql) or die ("Error: ".mysql_error()); while ($row = mysql_fetch_array($query)){ $email = $row['email']; $secret = $row['password']; //we will echo these into the proper fields } mysql_free_result($query); // Process the POST variables $email = $_POST["email"]; //Variables $_SESSION["email"] = $_POST["email"]; $secret = $info['password']; //Checks if there is a login cookie if(isset($_COOKIE['ID_my_site'])) //if there is, it logs you in and directes you to the members page { $email = $_COOKIE['ID_my_site']; $pass = $_COOKIE['Key_my_site']; $check = mysql_query("SELECT email, password FROM accounts WHERE email = '$email'")or die(mysql_error()); while($info = mysql_fetch_array( $check )) { if (@ $info['password'] != $pass) { } else { header("Location: home.php"); } } } //if the login form is submitted if (isset($_POST['submit'])) { // if form has been submitted // makes sure they filled it in if(!$_POST['email'] | !$_POST['password']) { die('You did not fill in a required field.'); } // checks it against the database if (!get_magic_quotes_gpc()) { $_POST['email'] = addslashes($_POST['email']); } $check = mysql_query("SELECT email,password FROM accounts WHERE email = '".$_POST['email']."'")or die(mysql_error()); //Gives error if user dosen't exist $check2 = mysql_num_rows($check); if ($check2 == 0) { die('That user does not exist in our database. <a href=add.php>Click Here to Register</a>'); } while($info = mysql_fetch_array( $check )) //gives error if the password is wrong if (@ $_POST['password'] != $info['password']) { die('Incorrect password, please try again'); } else { // if login is ok then we add a cookie $_POST['email'] = stripslashes($_POST['email']); $hour = time() + 3600; setcookie(ID_my_site, $_POST['email'], $hour); setcookie(Key_my_site, $_POST['password'], $hour); //then redirect them to the members area header("Location: home.php"); } } } else { // if they are not logged in ?> <?php } ?> home.php session_start(); if(!isset($_SESSION['email'])) { header('Location: login_test3.php'); die('<a href="login_test3.php">Login first!</a>'); } //Variables $_SESSION["email"] = $email; print $_SESSION['name']; UPDATE Just realized the existing code gets in to the home.php file but will not echo anything. But as soon as you hit refresh the session is gone.

    Read the article

  • Configuring Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

    - by Damien Carru
    In this article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods, based on the concepts introduced in my previous entry. I will show examples for the three protocols supported by OIF: SAML 2.0 SSO SAML 1.1 SSO OpenID 2.0 Enjoy the reading! Configuration As I mentioned in my previous article, mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. WLST Commands The two OIF WLST commands that can be used to define mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes are: addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner Profile, taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner Profile The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner , taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name Note: I will discuss in a subsequent article the other parameters of those commands. In the next sections, I will show examples on how to use those methods: For SAML 2.0, I will configure the SP Partner Profile, that will apply all the mappings to SP Partners referencing this profile, unless they override mapping definition For SAML 1.1, I will configure the SP Partner. For OpenID 2.0, I will configure the SP/RP Partner SAML 2.0 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use BasicScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map BasicSessionScheme  to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password Federation Authentication Method Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> BasicScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to BasicScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via HTTP Basic Authentication defined in the BasicScheme for AcmeSP. Also, as noted earlier, the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping BasicScheme To change the Federation Authentication Method mapping for the BasicScheme to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password instead of urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport for the saml20-sp-partner-profile SAML 2.0 SP Partner Profile (the profile to which my AcmeSP Partner is bound to), I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the AuthnContextClassRef was changed from PasswordProtectedTransport to Password): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of BasicScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme and BasicScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods. As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthnContextClassRef set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To add the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapping, I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to PasswordProtectedTransport): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> SAML 1.1 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 1.1 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods (in the SP Partner Profile). As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To map the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password for this SP Partner only, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme I will now show that by defining a Federation Authentication Mapping at the Partner level, this now ignores all mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile level. For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for this SP Partner back to LDAPScheme, and the Assertion issued by OIF/IdP will not be able to map this LDAPScheme to a Federation Authentication Method anymore, since A Federation Authentication Method mapping is defined at the SP Partner level and thus the mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile are ignored The LDAPScheme is not listed in the mapping at the Partner level I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for this SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to LDAPScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="LDAPScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping LDAPScheme at Partner Level To fix this issue, we will need to add the LDAPScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password mapping for this SP Partner only. I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OpenID 2.0 In the OpenID 2.0 flows, the RP must request use of PAPE, in order for OIF/IdP/OP to include PAPE information. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. The WLST command will take a list of policies, delimited by the ',' character, instead of SAML 2.0 or SAML 1.1 where a single Federation Authentication Method had to be specified. Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP/OP and is integrated with a remote OpenID 2.0 SP/RP partner identified by AcmeRP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods (the second one is a custom for this use case) LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. No Federation Authentication Method is defined OOTB for OpenID 2.0, so if the IdP/OP issue an SSO response with a PAPE Response element, it will specify the scheme name instead of Federation Authentication Methods After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an SSO Response similar to: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=LDAPScheme&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D Mapping LDAPScheme To map the LDAP Scheme to the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method (the policies will be comma separated): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeRP", "http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant,http://openid-policies/password-protected", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to the two policies): https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant+http%3A%2F%2Fopenid-policies%2Fpassword-protected&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will cover how OIF/IdP can be configured so that an SP can request a specific Federation Authentication Method to challenge the user during Federation SSO.Cheers,Damien Carru

    Read the article

  • Patching and PCI Compliance

    - by Joel Weise
    One of my friends and master of the security universe, Darren Moffat, pointed me to Dan Anderson's blog the other day.  Dan went to Toorcon which is a security conference where he went to a talk on security patching titled, "Stop Patching, for Stronger PCI Compliance".  I realize that often times speakers will use a headline grabbing title to create interest in their talk and this one certainly got my attention.  I did not go to the conference and did not see the presentation, so I can only go by what is in the Toorcon agenda summary and on Dan's blog, but the general statement to stop patching for stronger PCI compliance seems a bit misleading to me.  Clearly patching is important to all systems management and should be a part of any organization's security hygiene.  Further, PCI does require the patching of systems to maintain compliance.  So it's important to mention that organizations should not simply stop patching their systems; and I want to believe that was not the speakers intent. So let's look at PCI requirement 6: "Unscrupulous individuals use security vulnerabilities to gain privileged access to systems. Many of these vulnerabilities are fixed by vendor- provided security patches, which must be installed by the entities that manage the systems. All critical systems must have the most recently released, appropriate software patches to protect against exploitation and compromise of cardholder data by malicious individuals and malicious software." Notice the word "appropriate" in the requirement.  This is stated to give organizations some latitude and apply patches that make sense in their environment and that target the vulnerabilities in question.  Haven't we all seen a vulnerability scanner throw a false positive and flag some module and point to a recommended patch, only to realize that the module doesn't exist on our system?  Applying such a patch would obviously not be appropriate.  This does not mean an organization can ignore the fact they need to apply security patches.  It's pretty clear they must.  Of course, organizations have other options in terms of compliance when it comes to patching.  For example, they could remove a system from scope and make sure that system does not process or contain cardholder data.  [This may or may not be a significant undertaking.  I just wanted to point out that there are always options available.] PCI DSS requirement 6.1 also includes the following note: "Note: An organization may consider applying a risk-based approach to prioritize their patch installations. For example, by prioritizing critical infrastructure (for example, public-facing devices and systems, databases) higher than less-critical internal devices, to ensure high-priority systems and devices are addressed within one month, and addressing less critical devices and systems within three months." Notice there is no mention to stop patching one's systems.  And the note also states organization may apply a risk based approach. [A smart approach but also not mandated].  Such a risk based approach is not intended to remove the requirement to patch one's systems.  It is meant, as stated, to allow one to prioritize their patch installations.   So what does this mean to an organization that must comply with PCI DSS and maintain some sanity around their patch management and overall operational readiness?  I for one like to think that most organizations take a common sense and balanced approach to their business and security posture.  If patching is becoming an unbearable task, review why that is the case and possibly look for means to improve operational efficiencies; but also recognize that security is important to maintaining the availability and integrity of one's systems.  Likewise, whether we like it or not, the cyber-world we live in is getting more complex and threatening - and I dont think it's going to get better any time soon.

    Read the article

  • Can't add repos after upgrading to 12.04 LTS

    - by joao
    I'm a complete Linux newbie. I've just upgraded from 10.04 to 12.04 LTS and all sorts of things have started to go wrong. One main problem is the fact that I can't add repos. Example: sudo add-apt-repository ppa:team-xbmc outputs: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/add-apt-repository", line 8, in <module> from softwareproperties.SoftwareProperties import SoftwareProperties File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/softwareproperties/SoftwareProperties.py", line 53, in <module> from ppa import AddPPASigningKeyThread, expand_ppa_line File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/softwareproperties/ppa.py", line 27, in <module> import pycurl ImportError: librtmp.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory /etc/apt/sources.list # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS _Lucid Lynx_ - Release i386 (20100816.1)]/ lucid main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS _Lucid Lynx_ - Release i386 (20100816.1)]/ maverick main restricted # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates main restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates main restricted ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise multiverse deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from the 'backports' ## repository. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. # deb-src http://pt.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-backports main restricted universe multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu lucid partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu lucid partner deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse # deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/stebbins/handbrake-snapshots/ubuntu precise main # disabled on upgrade to precise I have no clue what do do next. Should I just scrap this installation and start from scratch or is this fixable? librtmp.so.0 also shows up in error logs I've started to get from XBMC (I'm not sure if this is relevant info). Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!

    Read the article

  • Problem when trying to update "Duplicate sources.list"

    - by Coca Akat
    I got this problem when trying to update using sudo apt-get update W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ saucy-backports/multiverse amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_saucy-backports_multiverse_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ saucy-backports/multiverse i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_saucy-backports_multiverse_binary-i386_Packages) W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems This is my souces.list : # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 13.10 _Saucy Salamander_ - Release amd64 (20131016.1)]/ saucy main restricted # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy main restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-updates main restricted ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-updates universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy multiverse deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-updates multiverse ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-security main restricted deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-security universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-security multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. # deb http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy main # deb-src http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy main # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ saucy partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ saucy partner # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu saucy-backports multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250  | Next Page >