Search Results

Search found 22139 results on 886 pages for 'security testing'.

Page 33/886 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Unit testing with Mocks. Test behaviour not implementation

    - by Kenny Eliasson
    Hi.. I always had a problem when unit testing classes that calls other classes, for example I have a class that creates a new user from a phone-number then saves it to the database and sends a SMS to the number provided. Like the code provided below. public class UserRegistrationProcess : IUserRegistration { private readonly IRepository _repository; private readonly ISmsService _smsService; public UserRegistrationProcess(IRepository repository, ISmsService smsService) { _repository = repository; _smsService = smsService; } public void Register(string phone) { var user = new User(phone); _repository.Save(user); _smsService.Send(phone, "Welcome", "Message!"); } } It is a really simple class but how would you go about and test it? At the moment im using Mocks but I dont really like it [Test] public void WhenRegistreringANewUser_TheNewUserIsSavedToTheDatabase() { var repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); var smsService = new Mock<ISmsService>(); var userRegistration = new UserRegistrationProcess(repository.Object, smsService.Object); var phone = "0768524440"; userRegistration.Register(phone); repository.Verify(x => x.Save(It.Is<User>(user => user.Phone == phone)), Times.Once()); } [Test] public void WhenRegistreringANewUser_ItWillSendANewSms() { var repository = new Mock<IRepository>(); var smsService = new Mock<ISmsService>(); var userRegistration = new UserRegistrationProcess(repository.Object, smsService.Object); var phone = "0768524440"; userRegistration.Register(phone); smsService.Verify(x => x.Send(phone, It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>()), Times.Once()); } It feels like I am testing the wrong thing here? Any thoughts on how to make this better?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing-- fundamental goal?

    - by David
    Me and my co-workers had a bit of a disagreement last night about unit testing in our PHP/MySQL application. Half of us argued that when unit testing a function within a class, you should mock everything outside of that class and its parents. The other half of us argued that you SHOULDN'T mock anything that is a direct dependancy of the class either. The specific example was our logging mechanism, which happened through a static Logging class, and we had a number of Logging::log() calls in various locations throughout our application. The first half of us said the Logging mechanism should be faked (mocked) because it would be tested in the Logging unit tests. The second half of us argued that we should include the original Logging class in our unit test so that if we make a change to our logging interface, we'll be able to see if it creates problems in other parts of the application due to failing to update the call interface. So I guess the fundamental question is-- do unit tests serve to test the functionality of a single unit in a closed environment, or show the consequences of changes to a single unit in a larger environment? If it's one of these, how do you accomplish the other?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Private Method in Resource Managing Class (C++)

    - by BillyONeal
    I previously asked this question under another name but deleted it because I didn't explain it very well. Let's say I have a class which manages a file. Let's say that this class treats the file as having a specific file format, and contains methods to perform operations on this file: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. //Return the checksum. } }; Let's say I'd like to be able to unit test the part of this class that calculates the checksum. Unit testing the parts of the class that load in the file and such is impractical, because to test every part of the getChecksum() method I might need to construct 40 or 50 files! Now lets say I'd like to reuse the checksum method elsewhere in the class. I extract the method so that it now looks like this: class Foo { std::wstring fileName_; static int calculateChecksum(const std::vector<unsigned char> &fileBytes) { //Long method to figure out what checksum it is. } public: Foo(const std::wstring& fileName) : fileName_(fileName) { //Construct a Foo here. }; int getChecksum() { //Open the file and read some part of it return calculateChecksum( something ); } void modifyThisFileSomehow() { //Perform modification int newChecksum = calculateChecksum( something ); //Apply the newChecksum to the file } }; Now I'd like to unit test the calculateChecksum() method because it's easy to test and complicated, and I don't care about unit testing getChecksum() because it's simple and very difficult to test. But I can't test calculateChecksum() directly because it is private. Does anyone know of a solution to this problem?

    Read the article

  • What is the purpose of unit testing an interface repository

    - by ahsteele
    I am unit testing an ICustomerRepository interface used for retrieving objects of type Customer. As a unit test what value am I gaining by testing the ICustomerRepository in this manner? Under what conditions would the below test fail? For tests of this nature is it advisable to do tests that I know should fail? i.e. look for id 4 when I know I've only placed 5 in the repository I am probably missing something obvious but it seems the integration tests of the class that implements ICustomerRepository will be of more value. [TestClass] public class CustomerTests : TestClassBase { private Customer SetUpCustomerForRepository() { return new Customer() { CustId = 5, DifId = "55", CustLookupName = "The Dude", LoginList = new[] { new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude" }, new Login { LoginCustId = 5, LoginName = "tdude2" } } }; } [TestMethod] public void CanGetCustomerById() { // arrange var customer = SetUpCustomerForRepository(); var repository = Stub<ICustomerRepository>(); // act repository.Stub(rep => rep.GetById(5)).Return(customer); // assert Assert.AreEqual(customer, repository.GetById(5)); } } Test Base Class public class TestClassBase { protected T Stub<T>() where T : class { return MockRepository.GenerateStub<T>(); } } ICustomerRepository and IRepository public interface ICustomerRepository : IRepository<Customer> { IList<Customer> FindCustomers(string q); Customer GetCustomerByDifID(string difId); Customer GetCustomerByLogin(string loginName); } public interface IRepository<T> { void Save(T entity); void Save(List<T> entity); bool Save(T entity, out string message); void Delete(T entity); T GetById(int id); ICollection<T> FindAll(); }

    Read the article

  • Framework or tool for "distributed unit testing"?

    - by user262646
    Is there any tool or framework able to make it easier to test distributed software written in Java? My system under test is a peer-to-peer software, and I'd like to perform testing using something like PNUnit, but with Java instead of .Net. The system under test is a framework I'm developing to build P2P applications. It uses JXTA as a lower subsystem, trying to hide some complexities of it. It's currently an academic project, so I'm pursuing simplicity at this moment. In my test, I want to demonstrate that a peer (running in its own process, possibly with multiple threads) can discover another one (running in another process or even another machine) and that they can exchange a few messages. I'm not using mocks nor stubs because I need to see both sides working simultaneously. I realize that some kind of coordination mechanism is needed, and PNUnit seems to be able to do that. I've bumped into some initiatives like Pisces, which "aims to provide a distributed testing environment that extends JUnit, giving the developer/tester an ability to run remote JUnits and create complex test suites that are composed of several remote JUnit tests running in parallel or serially", but this project and a few others I have found seem to be long dead.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

    - by Steve Steiner
    Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

    Read the article

  • C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

    - by lhumongous
    Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing - Algorithm or Sample based ?

    - by ohadsc
    Say I'm trying to test a simple Set class public IntSet : IEnumerable<int> { Add(int i) {...} //IEnumerable implementation... } And suppose I'm trying to test that no duplicate values can exist in the set. My first option is to insert some sample data into the set, and test for duplicates using my knowledge of the data I used, for example: //OPTION 1 void InsertDuplicateValues_OnlyOneInstancePerValueShouldBeInTheSet() { var set = new IntSet(); //3 will be added 3 times var values = new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5}; foreach (int i in values) set.Add(i); //I know 3 is the only candidate to appear multiple times int counter = 0; foreach (int i in set) if (i == 3) counter++; Assert.AreEqual(1, counter); } My second option is to test for my condition generically: //OPTION 2 void InsertDuplicateValues_OnlyOneInstancePerValueShouldBeInTheSet() { var set = new IntSet(); //The following could even be a list of random numbers with a duplicate var values = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5}; foreach (int i in values) set.Add(i); //I am not using my prior knowledge of the sample data //the following line would work for any data CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(new HashSet<int>(values), set); } Of course, in this example, I conveniently have a set implementation to check against, as well as code to compare collections (CollectionAssert). But what if I didn't have either ? This is the situation when you are testing your real life custom business logic. Granted, testing for expected conditions generically covers more cases - but it becomes very similar to implementing the logic again (which is both tedious and useless - you can't use the same code to check itself!). Basically I'm asking whether my tests should look like "insert 1, 2, 3 then check something about 3" or "insert 1, 2, 3 and check for something in general" EDIT - To help me understand, please state in your answer if you prefer OPTION 1 or OPTION 2 (or neither, or that it depends on the case, etc )

    Read the article

  • Unit testing a 'legacy' WPF Application

    - by sc_ray
    The product I have been working on has been in development for the past six years. It started as a generic data entry portal into an insanely complex part WPF/part legacy application. The system has been developed for all these years without a single Unit test in its fold. Now, the point has been raised for a comprehensive unit testing framework. I have been recruited recently to work on this product and have been tasked to get the 'Testing' in order. Since the team that worked on the product for the last six years adopted 'Agile', the project lacks any documentation of the business rules or any design documents. I have been trying to write unit tests for some of the modules. But I am not sure what to Mock, how to setup my Test fixture and eventually what to Test for, since a casual glance of the methods does not reveal its intentions. Also, it has come to my attention that the code was not developed with a particular methodology in mind. Given the situation, I was wondering if the good people of Stackoverflow could provide me with some advise on how to salvage this situation. I have heard about the book 'Working with Legacy Code' that has something to say about this general situation but I was thinking about getting some pointers from individuals who have encountered similar situations within the technology stack(C#,VB,C++,.NET 3.5,WCF,SQL Server 2005).

    Read the article

  • Integration testing - can it be done right?

    - by Max
    I used TDD as a development style on some projects in the past two years, but I always get stuck on the same point: how can I test the integration of the various parts of my program? What I am currently doing is writing a testcase per class (this is my rule of thumb: a "unit" is a class, and each class has one or more testcases). I try to resolve dependencies by using mocks and stubs and this works really well as each class can be tested independently. After some coding, all important classes are tested. I then "wire" them together using an IoC container. And here I am stuck: How to test if the wiring was successfull and the objects interact the way I want? An example: Think of a web application. There is a controller class which takes an array of ids, uses a repository to fetch the records based on these ids and then iterates over the records and writes them as a string to an outfile. To make it simple, there would be three classes: Controller, Repository, OutfileWriter. Each of them is tested in isolation. What I would do in order to test the "real" application: making the http request (either manually or automated) with some ids from the database and then look in the filesystem if the file was written. Of course this process could be automated, but still: doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic? Is this what is called an "integration test"? In a book i recently read about Unit Testing it seemed to me that integration testing was more of an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Is there a tool that can test what SSL/TLS cipher suites a particular website offers?

    - by Jeremy Powell
    Is there a tool that can test what SSL/TLS cipher suites a particular website offers? I've tried openssl, but if you examine the output: $ echo -n | openssl s_client -connect www.google.com:443 CONNECTED(00000003) depth=1 /C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate verify return:0 --- Certificate chain 0 s:/C=US/ST=California/L=Mountain View/O=Google Inc/CN=www.google.com i:/C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA 1 s:/C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA i:/C=US/O=VeriSign, Inc./OU=Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority --- Server certificate -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIDITCCAoqgAwIBAgIQL9+89q6RUm0PmqPfQDQ+mjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADBM MQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkg THRkLjEWMBQGA1UEAxMNVGhhd3RlIFNHQyBDQTAeFw0wOTEyMTgwMDAwMDBaFw0x MTEyMTgyMzU5NTlaMGgxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQIEwpDYWxpZm9ybmlh MRYwFAYDVQQHFA1Nb3VudGFpbiBWaWV3MRMwEQYDVQQKFApHb29nbGUgSW5jMRcw FQYDVQQDFA53d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkC gYEA6PmGD5D6htffvXImttdEAoN4c9kCKO+IRTn7EOh8rqk41XXGOOsKFQebg+jN gtXj9xVoRaELGYW84u+E593y17iYwqG7tcFR39SDAqc9BkJb4SLD3muFXxzW2k6L 05vuuWciKh0R73mkszeK9P4Y/bz5RiNQl/Os/CRGK1w7t0UCAwEAAaOB5zCB5DAM BgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMDYGA1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3Rl LmNvbS9UaGF3dGVTR0NDQS5jcmwwKAYDVR0lBCEwHwYIKwYBBQUHAwEGCCsGAQUF BwMCBglghkgBhvhCBAEwcgYIKwYBBQUHAQEEZjBkMCIGCCsGAQUFBzABhhZodHRw Oi8vb2NzcC50aGF3dGUuY29tMD4GCCsGAQUFBzAChjJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRoYXd0 ZS5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9UaGF3dGVfU0dDX0NBLmNydDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOBgQCfQ89bxFApsb/isJr/aiEdLRLDLE5a+RLizrmCUi3nHX4adpaQedEkUjh5 u2ONgJd8IyAPkU0Wueru9G2Jysa9zCRo1kNbzipYvzwY4OA8Ys+WAi0oR1A04Se6 z5nRUP8pJcA2NhUzUnC+MY+f6H/nEQyNv4SgQhqAibAxWEEHXw== -----END CERTIFICATE----- subject=/C=US/ST=California/L=Mountain View/O=Google Inc/CN=www.google.com issuer=/C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA --- No client certificate CA names sent --- SSL handshake has read 1777 bytes and written 316 bytes --- New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is AES256-SHA Server public key is 1024 bit Compression: NONE Expansion: NONE SSL-Session: Protocol : TLSv1 Cipher : AES256-SHA Session-ID: 748E2B5FEFF9EA065DA2F04A06FBF456502F3E64DF1B4FF054F54817C473270C Session-ID-ctx: Master-Key: C4284AE7D76421F782A822B3780FA9677A726A25E1258160CA30D346D65C5F4049DA3D10A41F3FA4816DD9606197FAE5 Key-Arg : None Start Time: 1266259321 Timeout : 300 (sec) Verify return code: 20 (unable to get local issuer certificate) --- it just shows that the cipher suite is something with AES256-SHA. I know I could grep through the hex dump of the conversation, but I was hoping for something a little more elegant. I would prefer Linux tools, but Windows (or other) would be fine. This question is motivated by the security testing I do for PCI and general penetration testing. Update: GregS points out below that the SSL server picks from the cipher suites of the client. So it seems I would need to test all cipher suites one at a time. I think I can hack something together, but is there a tool that does particularly this?

    Read the article

  • Security and the Mobile Workforce

    - by tobyehatch
    Now that many organizations are moving to the BYOD philosophy (bring your own devices), security for phones and tablets accessing company sensitive information is of paramount importance. I had the pleasure to interview Brian MacDonald, Principal Product Manager for Oracle Business Intelligence (BI) Mobile Products, about this subject, and he shared some wonderful insight about how the Oracle Mobile Security Tool Kit is addressing mobile security and doing some pretty cool things.  With the rapid proliferation of phones and tablets, there is a perception that mobile devices are a security threat to corporate IT, that mobile operating systems are not secure, and that there are simply too many ways to inadvertently provide access to critical analytic data outside the firewall. Every day, I see employees working on mobile devices at the airport, while waiting for their airplanes, and using public WIFI connections at coffee houses and in restaurants. These methods are not typically secure ways to access confidential company data. I asked Brian to explain why. “The native controls for mobile devices and applications are indeed insufficiently secure for corporate deployments of Business Intelligence and most certainly for businesses where data is extremely critical - such as financial services or defense - although it really applies across the board. The traditional approach for accessing data from outside a firewall is using a VPN connection which is not a viable solution for mobile. The problem is that once you open up a VPN connection on your phone or tablet, you are creating an opening for the whole device, for all the software and installed applications. Often the VPN connection by itself provides insufficient encryption – if any – which means that data can be potentially intercepted.” For this reason, most organizations that deploy Business Intelligence data via mobile devices will only do so with some additional level of control. So, how has the industry responded? What are companies doing to address this very real threat? Brian explained that “Mobile Device Management (MDM) and Mobile Application Management (MAM) software vendors have rapidly created solutions for mobile devices that provide a vast array of services for controlling, managing and establishing enterprise mobile usage policies. On the device front, vendors now support full levels of encryption behind the firewall, encrypted local data storage, credential management such as federated single-sign-on as well as remote wipe, geo-fencing and other risk reducing features (should a device be lost or stolen). More importantly, these software vendors have created methods for providing these capabilities on a per application basis, allowing for complete isolation of the application from the mobile operating system. Finally, there are tools which allow the applications themselves to be distributed through enterprise application stores allowing IT organizations to manage who has access to the apps, when updates to the applications will happen, and revoke access after an employee leaves. So even though an employee may be using a personal device, access to company data can be controlled while on or near the company premises. So do the Oracle BI mobile products integrate with the MDM and MAM vendors? Brian explained that our customers use a wide variety of mobile security vendors and may even have more than one in-house. Therefore, Oracle is ensuring that users have a choice and a mechanism for linking together Oracle’s BI offering with their chosen vendor’s secure technology. The Oracle BI Mobile Security Toolkit, which is a version of the Oracle BI Mobile HD application, delivered through the Oracle Technology Network (OTN) in its component parts, helps Oracle users to build their own version of the Mobile HD application, sign it with their own enterprise development certificates, link with their security vendor of choice, then deploy the combined application through whichever means they feel most appropriate, including enterprise application stores.  Brian further explained that Oracle currently supports most of the major mobile security vendors, has close relationships with each, and maintains strong partnerships enabling both Oracle and the vendors to test, update and release a cooperating solution in lock-step. Oracle also ensures that as new versions of the Oracle HD application are made available on the Apple iTunes store, the same version is also immediately made available through the Security Toolkit on OTN.  Rest assured that as our workforce continues down the mobile path, company sensitive information can be secured.  To listen to the entire podcast, click here. To learn more about the Oracle BI Mobile HD, click  here To learn more about the BI Mobile Security Toolkit, click here 

    Read the article

  • Mac Management and Security

    - by Bart Silverstrim
    I was going through some literature on managing OS X laptops and asked someone some questions about usage scenarios when using the MacBooks. I asked someone more knowledgeable than I about whether it was possible for my Mac to be taken over if I were visiting another site for a conference or if I went on a wifi network at a local coffee house with policies from an OS X Server with workgroup manager (either legit for the site or someone running a version of OS X Server on hardware they have hidden somewhere on the network), which apparently could be set up to do things like limit my access to Finder or impose other neat whiz-bang management features. He said that it is indeed possible for it to happen as it would be assigned via the DHCP server and the OS X server would assume my Mac is a guest and could hand out restrictions and apparently my Mac will happily accept them without notifying me or giving me an option, unlike Windows which I believe would need to be joined to a domain before it becomes "managed" by Active Directory. So my question is as network admins and sysadmins with users traveling with MacBooks, is there a way to reasonably protect your users from having their machines hijacked without resorting to just turning off networking all the time? Or isn't this much of a security hazard? What threat does this pose to the road warriors in your businesses?

    Read the article

  • Online Storage and security concerns

    - by Megge
    I plan to set up a small fileserver. I already own a small server at HostEurope (VirtualServer L, 250GB space), but they don't offer enough space (there is the HostEurope Cloud, but paying for bandwidth isn't an option here, video-streaming should be possible) Requirements summarized: Storage: 2TB, Users: ~15, Filesizes: < 100GB, should be easily reachable (Mount as a networkdrive or at least have solid "communication" software) My first question would be: Where can I get halfway affordable online storages? And how should I connect them to my server? Getting an additional server is a bit overkill, as I know no hoster which allows 2 TB on a small 2 Ghz Dual Core 2 GB RAM thingy (that would be enough by far, I just need much space), and connecting it via NFS or FTP over Internet seems a bit strange and cripples performance. Do you have any advice where I could get that storage service from? (I sent HostEurope a custom request today, but they didn't answer till now. If they can provide me with that space, this question will be irrelevant, but the 2nd one is the more important one anway, don't do much more than recommend me some based on experience, you don't have to crawl hours through hosting services) livedrive for example offers 5 TB for 17€ / month, I'd be happy with 2 TB for 20 €, the caveat is: It doesn't allow multiple users, which leads me to my second question: Where are the security problems? Which protocol is sufficient (I want private and "public" folders etc. the usual "every user has its own and a public space"-thing), secure and fast? (I'd tend to (S)FTP, problem with FTP is: Most of those hosting services don't even allow FTP with mutliple users and single users lead me into "hacking" a solution (you could map the basic folder structure on the main server and just mount every subfolder from the storage, things get difficult with a public folder with 644 permissions though) Is useing something like PKI or 802.1X overkill for private uses?

    Read the article

  • Managing Apache to Compensate for WebDAV's Security Masking

    - by Tohuw
    When a user creates a file via WebDAV, the default behavior is that the file is owned by the user and group running the Apache process, with a umask of 022. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible for unprivileged users to write to the files by other means without being a member of the group Apache runs under (which strikes me as a particularly bad idea). My current solution is to set umask 000 in Apache's envvars and remove all world permissions from the webdav parent directory for the user. So, if the WebDAV share is /home/foo/www, then /home/foo/www is owned by www-data:foo with permissions of 770. This keeps other unprivileged users out, more or less, but it's hokey at best and a security disaster awaiting at worst. From my research and poking around at mod_dav and Apache, I cannot find a reasonable solution short of a cron job flipping all the permissions back (I'd rather not have the load and increased complexity on the server). SuExec won't work, either, because WebDAV operations are not going to execute as a different user. Any thoughts on this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Security Essentials & MsMpEng.exe hogging resources

    - by Mike
    I've been using MSE for a couple months now, never had a single problem. All of a sudden the process "MsMpEng.exe" will randomly go crazy and hog all my system resources so I can't do anything unless I kill it in the task manager. (I've quit the program for now and my comp is running smooth). When I restart the program, reboot, whatever, it goes off and hogs all the resources again after a couple minutes. If I kill the process it will go away and then come back a couple minutes later and do the same thing. I've scanned with MSE, another antivirus and malware with no probs. Any ideas? Should I uninstall and find something else? The thing is I've liked it so far. I'm running Win7 64-bit. Also, I'm not running any other conflicting security programs. This is the only one on my PC right now. Windows Defender is also off.

    Read the article

  • Mac Management Without Permission and Security

    - by Bart Silverstrim
    I was going through some literature on managing OS X laptops and asked someone some questions about usage scenarios when using the MacBooks. I asked someone more knowledgeable than I about whether it was possible for my Mac to be taken over if I were visiting another site for a conference or if I went on a wifi network at a local coffee house with policies from an OS X Server with workgroup manager (either legit for the site or someone running a version of OS X Server on hardware they have hidden somewhere on the network), which apparently could be set up to do things like limit my access to Finder or impose other neat whiz-bang management features. He said that it is indeed possible for it to happen as it would be assigned via the DHCP server and the OS X server would assume my Mac is a guest and could hand out restrictions and apparently my Mac will happily accept them without notifying me or giving me an option, unlike Windows which I believe would need to be joined to a domain before it becomes "managed" by Active Directory. So my question is as network admins and sysadmins with users traveling with MacBooks, is there a way to reasonably protect your users from having their machines hijacked without resorting to just turning off networking all the time? Or isn't this much of a security hazard? What threat does this pose to the road warriors in your businesses?

    Read the article

  • Resources for Smartphone Security

    - by Shial
    My organization is currently working on improving our data and network security due to increasing HIPAA laws and a general need to get a better grasp on controlling our health related information. We are a non-profit working with people with developmental disabilities so we handle a lot of medical related information. One area that has been identified as a risk is our use of smartphones, specifically at this time Windows Mobile 6.1 devices from T-Mobile. We do not utilize the VPNs on the phones so there isn't any way they can access our databases or file servers (username/password for VPNs is not the domain logons). What would be exposed however is the particular user's email account since you could extract out the username/password and access the email either on the device or on our web email (Exchange 2003) which could contain HIPAA protected confidential information about clients and services and this would be an incident that would have to be reported. What resources or ideas would help us secure these devices? I'm not worried about data interception (using SSL) but more about physical theft or loss of the device. Are there websites that I just have not found with guidelines and suggestions or particualar products that would help protect us? I also don't want to limit the discussion to windows Mobile either. I myself am looking at an android 2.0 device and there is always the eventual possibility we could get pushed to enable the VPNs. I know this is a subject that likely won't have any particular correct answer and it is something we should all be aware of since there devices are sitting outside of our immediate control most of the time.

    Read the article

  • Can I disable this Windows (XP) Security Warning?

    - by FumbleFingers
    I recently reformatted my hard drive and reinstalled Windows XP (I know I'll have to take the plunge and commit to Win8 "real soon, now", but I'm just not quite ready for the upheaval yet! :) I used to use WinRar (and later, when I got fed up with the "nag" messages, 7-Zip), but I haven't installed either of them in my new configuration, so I must be using the built-in XP facility when I open *.zip files. For years, I've been opening downloaded *.zip archives, and using "drag & drop" to copy to a File Explorer window open on the folder where I want the files to end up (usually, My Documents\Downloads). But now I find that when I "drop" the file(s), I get a pop-up Windows Security Warning saying Are you sure you want to copy or move files to this folder? You should only move or copy files from locations that you trust Can anyone explain why I'm getting this message, and is there any (reasonably easy, please! :) way to suppress it? Since I've already put the *.zip file on my computer, it seems a bit late to ask if I trust it. (Thus far, the files in question have always been plain text, so it's not a matter of dodgy programs, etc.) Apologies for the low quality image - I don't have the appropriate tools or knowledge to do any better, and it doesn't help that my "PrtScr" screen capture has included what would have been on my second monitor (TV) if it had been turned on. If you can't read it, trust me - I have copied the text verbatim.

    Read the article

  • Securing SSH/SFTP and best practices on security

    - by MultiformeIngegno
    I'm on a fresh VPS with Ubuntu Server 12.04. I wanted to ask you the good practices to apply to enhance security over a stock Ubuntu-server. This is what I did up to now: I added Google Authenticator to SSH, then I created a new user (whom I'll use instead of 'root' for SSH & SFTP access) which I added to my /etc/sudoers list below 'root', so now it's: # User privilege specification root ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL new_user ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL Then I edited sshd_config and set PermitRootLogin to 'no'. Then restarted the ssh service. Is this ok? There are a few things I'd like to ask you though: 1) What's the sense of adding a new (sudoer) user whilst the root user still exist (ok it can't access with root privilege but it's still there..)? 2) System files are owned by 'root'.. I want to use my new_user to access via SFTP but with it I can't edit those files!! Should I mass-CHMOD 'em so that new_user has write perms too? What's the good practice on this? Thanks in advance, I hope you'll tell me if I did something wrong and/or other ways to secure the system. :)

    Read the article

  • Windows 2008 server smart card security module problem

    - by chris13work
    Hi, I've got a smart card reader and a server application using it as a security module. If I run it under DOS prompt, everything is fine. The server is running and clients can connect to it. I tried to install the server as window service and start it. The server starts but always gives back authentication error because it cannot call the smart card to do encryption. Then I tried to start it with task scheduler and set the trigger factor as "on startup". The server starts also but still cannot access the smart card reader. Then I tried remote desktop to the machine and run the server application under DOS prompt. Same error is returned. The situation is that the smart card reader only works under active console desktop environment. In the server application, WINSCARD API is used to access the smart card reader. Any suggestion so that we can access the smart card reader in running services? OS: Windows Server 2008 Smart Card Driver: Windows USB smart card Reader Smart Card API: WINSCARD

    Read the article

  • Windows 2008 server smart card security module problem

    - by chris13work
    Hi, I've got a smart card reader and a server application using it as a security module. If I run it under DOS prompt, everything is fine. The server is running and clients can connect to it. I tried to install the server as window service and start it. The server starts but always gives back authentication error because it cannot call the smart card to do encryption. Then I tried to start it with task scheduler and set the trigger factor as "on startup". The server starts also but still cannot access the smart card reader. Then I tried remote desktop to the machine and run the server application under DOS prompt. Same error is returned. The situation is that the smart card reader only works under active console desktop environment. In the server application, WINSCARD API is used to access the smart card reader. Any suggestion so that we can access the smart card reader in running services? OS: Windows Server 2008 Smart Card Driver: Windows USB smart card Reader Smart Card API: WINSCARD

    Read the article

  • Hiding subfolders from users with Windows Server security

    - by Frans
    Using Windows Server 2008. I would like to allow all users to map to a common network drive and be able to browse it. But, I only want them to be able to see the subfolders they actually have access rights to. Is this doable? Example I have a share with two folders on it; \\domain\share\FolderA \\domain\share\FolderB With three different security groups, I would like to map a network drive for all three to \\domain\share. However, for group1, I want them to only be able to see FolderA, group2 should only see FolderB and group3 should see both. I am not just talking about denying access to the actual folder, which is easy enough, I don't want the user to even be able to see that the folder exists. In other words, when group 1 logs in and do "dir n:\" they should see N:\FolderA When group 2 logs in, they should see N:\FolderB and when group 3 logs in they should see N:\Folder A N:\Folder B My half-baked solution If I completely block access to the root then I can't map a drive to it. I can give everyone the traverse right which then allows the user to map a drive. However, if a member of group1 or group2 tries to go to "N:\" they get an access denied error. If they go to N:\FolderA (for group1) then it works. So, that sort of works, but it would be nicer if the user could actually browse to N:\ and just only see the subfolders they have access to. I am pretty sure I have seen this done but not sure how to do it myself. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Webcam security camera software that runs as a service

    - by hurfdurf
    I've been looking for Windows webcam software that will run as a Windows service without any user login. The goal is to use the webcam as a cheap security camera and log the results to secure networked storage (windows share, not FTP). The requirements are: Motion detection Video capture Runs as a service (should start recording immediately after reboot) Nice to have: Round-robin storage, e.g. 10Gb limit, oldest files overwritten/deleted when space gets low I've read the other webcam questions but still haven't stumbled across anything suitable. Evaluations thus far: Title MotionDetect Service Snapshots Video SpaceLimit License Yawcam Yes Yes Yes No No GPL WebCam ZoneTrigger Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial Dorgem Yes No Yes Yes No GPL AbelCam Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial Logitech Yes No Yes Yes No Paired with camera IspyConnect Yes No Yes Yes Yes Free SecureCam (SourcefoYes No Yes Yes No GPL AbelCam Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial Active WebCam Yes Yes(?) Yes Yes Volume Free Commercial WebCam Surveyor Yes No Yes Yes No Commercial WebCamsPy NA NA NA NA NA GPL Camera: Logitech Webcam Pro 9000 Windows 7 32-bit WebCamsPy failed to initialize so couldn't be tested So far, the contenders: Active Webcam comes the closest, and claims to run as a service, but i haven't been able to get it to record after a cold boot even though a service is running. Yawcam can be set up as a service but doesn't record video. IspyConnect has exactly the type of space limit I want and looks great, but doesn't run as a service (seems also to be a bit of a cpu hog) Any other suggestions? I'm locked into Windows so can't use linux Motion, which looks almost perfect. Any pointers to rich Windows webcam/motion detection libraries out there that could easily be turned into a command line program would also be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Linux security: The dangers of executing malignant code as a standard user

    - by AndreasT
    Slipping some (non-root) user a piece of malignant code that he or she executes might be considered as one of the highest security breaches possible. (The only higher I can see is actually accessing the root user) What can an attacker effectively do when he/she gets a standard, (let's say a normal Ubuntu user) to execute code? Where would an attacker go from there? What would that piece of code do? Let's say that the user is not stupid enough to be lured into entering the root/sudo password into a form/program she doesn't know. Only software from trusted sources is installed. The way I see it there is not really much one could do, is there? Addition: I partially ask this because I am thinking of granting some people shell (non-root) access to my server. They should be able to have normal access to programs. I want them to be able to compile programs with gcc. So there will definitely be arbitrary code run in user-space...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >