Search Results

Search found 14267 results on 571 pages for 'security certificate'.

Page 29/571 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Excluding specific file types from a security audit in windows server 2008

    - by Mozez
    Hi, I am looking for a way to exclude specific file types from being logged in the security audits. I have a folder being audited for deletion events and the majority of logged events are .tmp files (such as a temp Word file that is automatically deleted when the app is closed) which I do not care about. Would anyone know of a way to exclude these types of files from being logged? Thanks in advance for any comments.

    Read the article

  • SARA Security Auditor Alternative

    - by bradlis7
    I have attempted to install and run Sara, but it seems that the software is broken. I could get it to run on 127.0.0.1, but it seems that no network packets ever leave the current computer that it is installed on. It tests for known security holes in a network. It was based on an older software SATAN. Is there another free alternative to this program? I did not see anything listed in this thread.

    Read the article

  • Basic security practices for desktop Ubuntu

    - by Daisetsu
    Most of us know the basic security practices on Windows: use a limited account set a password disable unused services uninstall bloatware Antivirus / Antimalware etc. I haven't ran linux as my main desktop computer before, so I don't know how to properly secure it. I have heard linux is supposed to be more secure than Windows, but I know that the default settings of anything are rarely secure. What are some things I should do as a new Linux user to secure my desktop system from attack?

    Read the article

  • Firefox: This connection is untrusted + Behind corporate firewall

    - by espais
    I've seen some similar issues strewn throughout Google's results about this, but none seem to be corporate-specific. I continually get the 'This connection is untrusted' screen every time I attempt to log into a secure site...for instance Gmail. This is pretty annoying as sometimes I have to go through the process of adding the exception two or three times before it finally lets me into Gmail. I am behind a corporate firewall, going through an internal proxy server to get to the Internet, so there is no possibility for me to update the firewall...etc. Does anybody know a way around this? Can it simply be disabled (and is that safe)? EDIT I'm going to reopen this question with a bit of new information. I have been using Google Chrome lately until today, and one thing that I noticed was that I never had this issue when using either Chrome or Internet Explorer. Is there something that these other browsers do that I need to manually do in FF?

    Read the article

  • How to add security zone information to files?

    - by user33938
    I recently enabled "Do not preserve zone information in file attachments", to get rid that annoying "Do you want to run this program" security warning. Now, how can I add this information to a file that doesn't have it? I would like to get that warning back on certain files.

    Read the article

  • Mobile security solutions

    - by techzen
    What are the mobile security solutions used by you / your organization. What are the pro's and cons of usage of these solution - and how far have you been successful in implementing these - were there any loopholes / issues faced in using them?. In general, can you suggest a set of guidelines to watch for when going for going for selecting a specific solution in this context.

    Read the article

  • "Hostile" network in the company - please comment on a security setup

    - by TomTom
    I have a little specific problem here that I want (need) to solve in a satisfactory way. My company has multiple (IPv4) networks that are controlled by our router sitting in the middle. Typical smaller shop setup. There is now one additional network that has an IP Range OUTSIDE of our control, connected to the internet with another router OUTSIDE of our control. Call it a project network that is part of another companies network and combined via VPN they set up. This means: They control the router that is used for this network and They can reconfigure things so that they can access the machines in this network. The network is physically split on our end through some VLAN capable switches as it covers three locations. At one end there is the router the other company controls. I Need / want to give the machines used in this network access to my company network. In fact, it may be good to make them part of my active directory domain. The people working on those machines are part of my company. BUT - I need to do so without compromising the security of my company network from outside influence. Any sort of router integration using the externally controlled router is out by this idea So, my idea is this: We accept the IPv4 address space and network topology in this network is not under our control. We seek alternatives to integrate those machines into our company network. The 2 concepts I came up with are: Use some sort of VPN - have the machines log into VPN. Thanks to them using modern windows, this could be transparent DirectAccess. This essentially treats the other IP space not different than any restaurant network a laptop of the company goes in. Alternatively - establish IPv6 routing to this ethernet segment. But - and this is a trick - block all IPv6 packets in the switch before they hit the third party controlled router, so that even IF they turn on IPv6 on that thing (not used now, but they could do it) they would get not a single packet. The switch can nicely do that by pulling all IPv6 traffic coming to that port into a separate VLAN (based on ethernet protocol type). Anyone sees a problem with using he switch to isolate the outer from IPv6? Any security hole? It is sad we have to treat this network as hostile - would be a lot easier - but the support personnel there is of "known dubious quality" and the legal side is clear - we can not fulfill our obligations when we integrate them into our company while they are under a jurisdiction we don't have a say in.

    Read the article

  • I need Internet Security software with following properties

    - by Eias.N
    Hello ,, I want to own an Internet Security software , but I prefer that it has following properties : Not a heavy one that killing the machine (Like Norton) . Delete the viruses , and don't keep it after clean it . The most important off all : Has an Offline databases that Can I download and add to program database without connecting to Internet (Not Like KIS 2010) Containing (anti spam -anti Virus - Fire wall - ....... ) So what is in your mind?(Don't tell me AVG I tested it)

    Read the article

  • Remove the Microsoft Security Essentials icon

    - by unam3d
    I've been using Microsoft Security Essentials on Windows 7 for sometime now and so far I don't have a bad word to say about it. I would like to permanently remove the MSE icon from the task bar and pop-up box, though I would still like to be informed when it detects a threat, etc.

    Read the article

  • How to make iPhone application accept incorrect server certificate but only specific one?

    - by Igor Romanov
    I need to work with private HTTPS API and client has incorrect certificate on the host. Certificate is for www.clienthost.com and I'm working with api.clienthost.com. So I need to connect via HTTPS to api.clienthost.com ignoring incorrect certificate but still make sure it is the one for www.clienthost.com and not something else. I found this answer: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/933331/how-to-use-nsurlconnection-to-connect-with-ssl-for-an-untrusted-cert and it seems to solve half of my problem but I'm trying to figure out how to still check certificate for host is one I expect to see and not different.

    Read the article

  • Peer did not return a certificate

    - by pfista
    I am trying to get two way SSL authentication working between a Python server and an Android client application. I have access to both the server and client, and would like to implement client authentication using my own certificate. So far I have been able to verify the server certificate and connect without client authentication. What sort of certificate does the client need and how do I get it to automatically send it to the server during the handshake process? Here is the client and server side code that I have so far. Is my approach wrong? Server Code while True: # Keep listening for clients c, fromaddr = sock.accept() ssl_sock = ssl.wrap_socket(c, keyfile = "serverPrivateKey.pem", certfile = "servercert.pem", server_side = True, # Require the client to provide a certificate cert_reqs = ssl.CERT_REQUIRED, ssl_version = ssl.PROTOCOL_TLSv1, ca_certs = "clientcert.pem", #TODO must point to a file of CA certificates?? do_handshake_on_connect = True, ciphers="!NULL:!EXPORT:AES256-SHA") print ssl_sock.cipher() thrd = sock_thread(ssl_sock) thrd.daemon = True thrd.start() I suspect I may be using the wrong file for ca_certs...? Client Code private boolean connect() { try { KeyStore keystore = KeyStore.getInstance("BKS"); // Stores the client certificate, to be sent to server KeyStore truststore = KeyStore.getInstance("BKS"); // Stores the server certificate we want to trust // TODO: change hard coded password... THIS IS REAL BAD MKAY truststore.load(mSocketService.getResources().openRawResource(R.raw.truststore), "test".toCharArray()); keystore.load(mSocketService.getResources().openRawResource(R.raw.keystore), "test".toCharArray()); // Use the key manager for client authentication. Keys in the key manager will be sent to the host KeyManagerFactory keyFManager = KeyManagerFactory.getInstance(KeyManagerFactory.getDefaultAlgorithm()); keyFManager.init(keystore, "test".toCharArray()); // Use the trust manager to determine if the host I am connecting to is a trusted host TrustManagerFactory trustMFactory = TrustManagerFactory.getInstance(TrustManagerFactory .getDefaultAlgorithm()); trustMFactory.init(truststore); // Create the socket factory and add both the trust manager and key manager SSLCertificateSocketFactory socketFactory = (SSLCertificateSocketFactory) SSLCertificateSocketFactory .getDefault(5000, new SSLSessionCache(mSocketService)); socketFactory.setTrustManagers(trustMFactory.getTrustManagers()); socketFactory.setKeyManagers(keyFManager.getKeyManagers()); // Open SSL socket directly to host, host name verification is NOT performed here due to // SSLCertificateFactory implementation mSSLSocket = (SSLSocket) socketFactory.createSocket(mHostname, mPort); mSSLSocket.setSoTimeout(TIMEOUT); // Most SSLSocketFactory implementations do not verify the server's identity, allowing man-in-the-middle // attacks. This implementation (SSLCertificateSocketFactory) does check the server's certificate hostname, // but only for createSocket variants that specify a hostname. When using methods that use InetAddress or // which return an unconnected socket, you MUST verify the server's identity yourself to ensure a secure // connection. verifyHostname(); // Safe to proceed with socket now ... I have generated a client private key, a client certificate, a server private key, and a server certificate using openssl. I then added the client certificate to keystore.bks (which I store in /res/raw/keystore.bks) I then added the server certificate to the truststore.bks So now when the client tries to connect I am getting this error server side: ssl.SSLError: [Errno 1] _ssl.c:504: error:140890C7:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_CLIENT_CERTIFICATE:peer did not return a certificate And when I try to do this in the android client SSLSession s = mSSLSocket.getSession(); s.getPeerCertificates(); I get this error: javax.net.ssl.SSLPeerUnverifiedException: No peer certificate So obviously the keystore I am using doesn't appear to have a correct peer certificate in it and thus isn't sending one to the server. What should I put in the keystore to prevent this exception? Furthermore, is this method of two way SSL authentication safe and effective?

    Read the article

  • Exposing server uptime a potential security vulnerability?

    - by Edward Mazur
    I run a browser-based game and as part of a page with a bunch of game statistics, I have the server uptime listed. It's currently at 177 days and so someone mentioned to me that I shouldn't do this because a long uptime indicates the kernel is old and therefore missing security updates. This certainly sounds logical, but I searched around and couldn't find any evidence to support it. So I'm just wondering, is this indeed something I should not have exposed?

    Read the article

  • Server Config on Github Security Considerations?

    - by Alan Griffith
    What are the security considerations of having my server configs in a repo on Github with world read-only access. I know to not include /etc/shadow and other password files. I'd like to share any of my good ideas and allow others to contribute, but I don't want to roll out a welcome mat for crackers.

    Read the article

  • Belarc Advisor (Store Passwords using Reversible Encryption)

    - by Steve
    Hi, I'm using Belarc Advisor to examine my PC. Part of BA is a security benchmark summary, which examines components of windows security and provides a benchmark rating. Two items are marked as Fail: - Store Passwords using Reversible Encryption - Password History Size I have opened the Local Security Settings tool from the Control Panel Administrative Tools, and ensured that the "Store passwords using reversible encryption" setting is enabled. Also, I've set the password history to a number. So I'm a bit miffed about the Fail marks. Any idea why the Fail marks appear? Any clues how I can Pass them? Thanks, Steve.

    Read the article

  • Security camera for HQ and remote sites?

    - by Atlas
    We want to install security cams at HQ site and 3 remotes sites. Basically: (1) Each site would have N cams (2) Each site should have DVR locally to record everything. What we want is that HQ to be able to see the live/recorded videos of each remote site and including itself. Preferably HQ would have 1 large screen, and display all cams of itself and remotes sites, say showing it in 32x32 cells. Does such system exists?

    Read the article

  • Limiting database security

    - by Torbal
    A number of texts signify that the most important aspects offered by a DBMS are availability, integrity and secrecy. As part of a homework assignment I have been tasked with mentioning attacks which would affect each aspect. This is what I have come up with - are they any good? Availability - DDOS attack Integrity Secrecy - SQL Injection attack Integrity - Use of trojans to gain access to objects with higher security roles

    Read the article

  • How to deal with transport level security policy with OSB

    - by Jian Liang
    Recently, we received a use case for Oracle Service Bus (OSB) 11gPS4 to consume a Web Service which is secured by HTTP transport level security policy. The WSDL of the remote web service looks like following where the part marked in red shows the security policy: <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <definitions xmlns:wssutil="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns:wsp="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy" xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:tns="https://httpsbasicauth" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" targetNamespace="https://httpsbasicauth" name="HttpsBasicAuthService"> <wsp:UsingPolicy wssutil:Required="true"/> <wsp:Policy wssutil:Id="WSHttpBinding_IPartyServicePortType_policy"> <wsp:ExactlyOne> <wsp:All> <ns1:TransportBinding xmlns:ns1="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/07/securitypolicy"> <wsp:Policy> <ns1:TransportToken> <wsp:Policy> <ns1:HttpsToken RequireClientCertificate="false"/> </wsp:Policy> </ns1:TransportToken> <ns1:AlgorithmSuite> <wsp:Policy> <ns1:Basic256/> </wsp:Policy> </ns1:AlgorithmSuite> <ns1:Layout> <wsp:Policy> <ns1:Strict/> </wsp:Policy> </ns1:Layout> </wsp:Policy> </ns1:TransportBinding> <ns2:UsingAddressing xmlns:ns2="http://www.w3.org/2006/05/addressing/wsdl"/> </wsp:All> </wsp:ExactlyOne> </wsp:Policy> <types> <xsd:schema> <xsd:import namespace="https://proxyhttpsbasicauth" schemaLocation="http://localhost:7001/WS/HttpsBasicAuthService?xsd=1"/> </xsd:schema> <xsd:schema> <xsd:import namespace="https://httpsbasicauth" schemaLocation="http://localhost:7001/WS/HttpsBasicAuthService?xsd=2"/> </xsd:schema> </types> <message name="echoString"> <part name="parameters" element="tns:echoString"/> </message> <message name="echoStringResponse"> <part name="parameters" element="tns:echoStringResponse"/> </message> <portType name="HttpsBasicAuth"> <operation name="echoString"> <input message="tns:echoString"/> <output message="tns:echoStringResponse"/> </operation> </portType> <binding name="HttpsBasicAuthSoapPortBinding" type="tns:HttpsBasicAuth"> <wsp:PolicyReference URI="#WSHttpBinding_IPartyServicePortType_policy"/> <soap:binding transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http" style="document"/> <operation name="echoString"> <soap:operation soapAction=""/> <input> <soap:body use="literal"/> </input> <output> <soap:body use="literal"/> </output> </operation> </binding> <service name="HttpsBasicAuthService"> <port name="HttpsBasicAuthSoapPort" binding="tns:HttpsBasicAuthSoapPortBinding"> <soap:address location="https://localhost:7002/WS/HttpsBasicAuthService"/> </port> </service> </definitions> The security assertion in the WSDL (marked in red) indicates that this is the HTTP transport level security policy which requires one way SSL with default authentication (aka. basic authenticate with username/password). Normally, there are two ways to handle web service security policy with OSB 11g: Use WebLogic 9.x policy Use OWSM Since OSB doesn’t support WebLogic 9.x WSSP transport level assertion (except for WS transport), when we tried to create the business service based on the imported WSDL, OSB complained with the following message: [OSB Kernel:398133]The service is based on WSDL with Web Services Security Policies that are not natively supported by Oracle Service Bus. Please select OWSM Policies - From OWSM Policy Store option and attach equivalent OWSM security policy. For the Business Service, either you can add the necessary client policies manually by clicking Add button or you can let Oracle Service Bus automatically pick and add compatible client policies by clicking Add Compatible button. Unfortunately, when tried with OWSM, we couldn’t find http_token_policy from OWSM since OSB PS4 doesn’t support OWSM http_token_policy. It seems that we ran into an unsupported situation that no appropriate policy can be used from both WebLogic and OWSM. As this security policy requires one way SSL with basic authentication at the transport level, a possible workaround is to meet the remote service's requirement at transport level without using web service policy. We can simply use OSB to establish SSL connection and provide username/password for authentication at the transport level to the remote web service. In this case, the business service within OSB will be transparent to the web service policy. However, we still need to deal with OSB console’s complaint related to unsupported security policy because the failure of WSDL validation prohibits OSB console to move forward. With the help from OSB Product Management team, we finally came up with the following solutions: Solution 1: OSB PS5 The good news is that the http_token_policy is made available in OSB PS5. With OSB PS5, you can simply add OWSM oracle/wss_http_token_over_ssl_client_policy to the business service. The simplest solution is to upgrade to OSB PS5 where the OWSM solution is provided out of the box. But if you are not in a position where upgrading is an immediate option, you might want to consider other two workaround solutions described below. Solution 2: Modifying WSDL This solution addresses OSB console’s complaint by removing the security policy from the imported WSDL within OSB. Without the security policy, OSB console allows the business service to be created based on modified WSDL.  Please bear in mind, modifying WSDL is done only for the OSB side via OSB console, no change is required on the remote Web Service. The main steps of this solution: Connect to OSB console import the remote WSDL into OSB remove security assertion (the red marked part) from the imported WSDL create a service account. In our sample, we simply take the user weblogic create the business service and check "Basic" for Authentication and select the created service account make sure that OSB consumes the web service via https. This solution requires modifying WSDL. It is suitable for any OSB version (10g or OSB 11g version) prior to PS5 without OWSM. However, modifying WSDL by hand is troublesome as it requires the user to remember that the original WSDL was edited.  It forces you to make the same edit each time you want to re-import the service WSDL when changes occur at the service level. This also prevents you from using UDDI to import WSDL.  Solution 3: Using original WSDL This solution keeps the WSDL intact and ignores the embedded policy by using OWSM. By design, OWSM doesn’t like WSDL with embedded security assertion. Since OWSM doesn’t provide the feature to explicitly ignore the embedded policy from a remote WSDL, in this solution, we use OWSM in a tricky way to ignore the embedded policy. Connect to OSB console import the remote WSDL into OSB create a service account create the business service in which check "Basic" for Authentication and select the created service account as the imported WSDL is intact, the OSB Kernel:398133 error is expected ignore this error message for the moment and navigate to the Policies Page of business service Select “From OWSM Policy Store” and click “Add” button, the list of policies will pop-up Here is the tricky part: select an arbitrary policy, and click “Cancel” Update and save By clicking “Cancel’ button, we didn’t add any OWSM policy to business service, but the embedded policy is ignored. Yes, this is tricky. According to Oracle OSB Product Manager, the future release of OWSM will add a button “None” which allows to ignore the embedded policy explicitly. This solution keeps the imported WSDL intact which is the big advantage over the solution 2. It is suitable for OSB 11g (version prior to PS5) domain with OWSM configured. This blog addressed the unsupported transport level web service security policy with OSB PS4. To summarize, if you are using OSB PS5 or in a position to upgrade to PS5, the recommendation is to use OWSM OOTB transport level security policy directly. With the release prior to 11g PS5, you can consider the solution 2 or 3 depending on if OWSM is configured.

    Read the article

  • Filtering option list values based on security in UCM

    - by kyle.hatlestad
    Fellow UCM blog writer John Sim recently posted a comment asking about filtering values based on the user's security. I had never dug into that detail before, but thought I would take a look. It ended up being tricker then I originally thought and required a bit of insider knowledge, so I thought I would share. The first step is to create the option list table in Configuration Manager. You want to define the column for the option list value and any other columns desired. You then want to have a column which will store the security attribute to apply to the option list value. In this example, we'll name the column 'dGroupName'. Next step is to create a View based on the new table. For the Internal and Visible column, you can select the option list column name. Then click on the Security tab, uncheck the 'Publish view data' checkbox and select the 'Use standard document security' radio button. Click on the 'Edit Values...' button and add the values for the option list. In the dGroupName field, enter the Security Group (or Account if you use Accounts for security) to apply to that value. Create the custom metadata field and apply the View just created. The next step requires file system access to the server. Open the file [ucm directory]\data\schema\views\[view name].hda in a text editor. Below the line '@Properties LocalData', add the line: schSecurityImplementorColumnMap=dGroupName:dSecurityGroup The 'dGroupName' value designates the column in the table which stores the security value. 'dSecurityGroup' indicates the type of security to check against. It would be 'dDocAccount' if using Accounts. Save the file and restart UCM. Now when a user goes to the check-in page, they will only see the options for which they have read and write privileges to the associated Security Group. And on the Search page, they will see the options for which they have just read access. One thing to note is if a value that a user normally can't view on Check-in or Search is applied to a document, but the document is viewable by the user, the user will be able to see the value on the Content Information screen.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >