Search Results

Search found 1036 results on 42 pages for 'grant wagner'.

Page 36/42 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

• Server 2003 R2 - II6- granting access to website via IP with subnet range

  - by John

  We are trying to allow for a client to connect to our website. By default we are Denying all access except for those with the specified IPs we have configured to run, everything before has just been a single IP address. However now we must implement a range of IPs and rather than input thousands of records we want to use the group of computer options in the Grant Access page. However we have it configured to work off of the IP 72.21.192.0 with a subnet mask of 255.255.224.0 They are unable to connect. Looking over our IIS logs they are receiving a 302 error which is the same behavior anyone should get whom is unauthorized to view the page in question. The IP address coming in is 72.21.217.2, so it should be well within the rage of acceptable IP addresses. I'm at a loss as everything I look up tells me to do what we are doing. So any insight would be appreciated. Especially because I'm a software guy not hardware. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Why am I not able to create a backup plan for TFS?

  - by noocyte

  I am trying to create a backup plan using the TFS Power Tools but I keep running into this error message: I have checked that the account has Full Control on the share, I can edit, create and delete files there. From the log: [Info @07:15:00.403] Starting creating backup test validation [Error @07:15:00.700] Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.FailedOperationException: Backup failed for Server 'WMSI003714N\SqlExpress'. ---> Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ExecutionFailureException: An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. ---> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Cannot open backup device '\\wmsi003714n\sql dump\Tfs_Configuration_20100910091500.bak'. Operating system error 5(failed to retrieve text for this error. Reason: 1815). BACKUP DATABASE is terminating abnormally. at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ConnectionManager.ExecuteTSql(ExecuteTSqlAction action, Object execObject, DataSet fillDataSet, Boolean catchException) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ServerConnection.ExecuteNonQuery(String sqlCommand, ExecutionTypes executionType) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ServerConnection.ExecuteNonQuery(String sqlCommand, ExecutionTypes executionType) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ServerConnection.ExecuteNonQuery(StringCollection sqlCommands, ExecutionTypes executionType) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExecutionManager.ExecuteNonQuery(StringCollection queries) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.BackupRestoreBase.ExecuteSql(Server server, StringCollection queries) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.Backup.SqlBackup(Server srv) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.Backup.SqlBackup(Server srv) at Microsoft.TeamFoundation.PowerTools.Admin.Helpers.BackupFactory.TestBackupCreation(String path) [Error @07:15:00.731] !Verify Error!: Account GROUPINFRA\SA-NO-TeamService failed to create backups using path \\wmsi003714n\sql dump [Info @07:15:00.731] "Verify: Grant Backup Plan Permissions\Root\VerifyDummyBackupCreation(VerifyTestBackupCreatedSuccessfully): Exiting Verification with state Completed and result Error" Any ideas?

  Read the article

• SELinux - Allow multiple services access to same /home/dir

  - by Mike Purcell

  I currently have SELinux enabled and have been able to configure apache to allow access to /home/src/web with a chcon command granting the 'httpd_sys_content_t' type. But now I am trying to serve the rsyslogd.conf file from the same directory, but every time I start rsyslogd I see an entry in my audit log saying that rsyslogd was denied access. My question is, is it possible to grant two applications the ability to access the same directory, while still keeping SELinux enabled? Current perms on /home/src: drwxr-xr-x. src src unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t:s0 src Audit log message: type=AVC msg=audit(1349113476.272:1154): avc: denied { search } for pid=9975 comm="rsyslogd" name="/" dev=dm-2 ino=2 scontext=unconfined_u:system_r:syslogd_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:home_root_t:s0 tclass=dir type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1349113476.272:1154): arch=c000003e syscall=2 success=no exit=-13 a0=7f9ef0c027f5 a1=0 a2=1b6 a3=0 items=0 ppid=9974 pid=9975 auid=500 uid=0 gid=0 euid=0 suid=0 fsuid=0 egid=0 sgid=0 fsgid=0 tty=(none) ses=30 comm="rsyslogd" exe="/sbin/rsyslogd" subj=unconfined_u:system_r:syslogd_t:s0 key=(null) -- Edit -- Came across this post, which is sort of what I am trying to accomplish. However when I viewed the list of allowed sebool params, the only relating to syslog was: syslogd_disable_trans (SELinux Service Protection), seems like I can maintain the current SELinux 'type' on the /home/src/ dir, but set the bool on syslogd_disable_trans to false. I wonder if there is a better approach?

  Read the article

• Understanding Authorized Access to your Google Account

  - by firebush

  I'm having trouble understanding what I'm am granting to sites when they have "Authorized Access to my Google Account." This is how I see what has authorized access: Log into gmail. Click on the link that is my name in the upper-right corner, and from the drop-down select Account. From the list of links to the left, select Security. Click on Edit next to Authorized applications and sites. Authenticate again. At the top of the page, I see a set of sites that have authorized access to my account in various ways. I'm having trouble finding out information about what is being told to me here. There's no "help" link anywhere on the page and my Google searches are coming up unproductive. From the looks of what I see there, Google has access to my Google calendar. I feel comfortable about that, I think. But other sites have authorization to "Sign in using your Google account". My question is, what exactly does that authorization mean? What do the sites that have authorization to "Sign in using my Google account" have the power to do? I hope that this simply means that they authorize using the same criterion that gmail does. I assume that this doesn't grant them the ability to access my email. Can someone please calm my paranoia by describing (or simply pointing me to a site that describes) what these terms mean exactly? Also, if you have any thoughts about the safety of this feature, please share. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What permissions do I need to move a folder?

  - by isme

  In the root of my drive there exists a folder called SourceControl that contains all the working copies of all my programming projects. I would like to move the folder to my user directory (\Users\Me), but something about the permissions on the folder forbids me. I don't remember how I created the folder. When I execute the move command: MOVE \SourceControl \Users\Me I receive the following error: Access is denied. I have resolved a similar problem in the past using the Takeown utility to assign ownership of the file to me, so I tried this command next: TAKEOWN /F \SourceControl It returns the following error: ERROR: The current logged on user does not have ownership privileges on the file (or folder) "C:\SourceControl". I've just learned about the Icacls utility, which can inspect and modify file permissions. I used this command to inspect the permissions on the folder: ICACLS \SourceControl It produced this list: \SourceControl BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(F) BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) BUILTIN\Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(RX) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(M) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(M) I think this means that normal user accounts, like mine, have permission only to read and execute (RX) here, while administrator accounts have full control (F). I used Icacls to confer full control of the directory to my user account with this command: ICACLS \SourceControl /grant:r Me:F The command produces this output: processed file: \SourceControl Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files Now inspection of the permissions produces this output: \SourceControl Domain\Me:(F) BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(F) BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) BUILTIN\Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(RX) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(M) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(M) But after this the move command still fails with the same error. Is it possible to move this folder without invoking administrator rights? If not, how should I do it as administrator?

  Read the article

• Windows 7 sharing folder from command line, selecting users and triggering the "Apply" of changes

  - by clintp

  I have a drive that doesn't get mounted until after I log in. (A Truecrypt thumbdrive device, and no, I'm not making it a "System Favorite" to get around this.) I'd like to construct a batch file to share it once I've gotten it mounted because the sharing info doesn't seem to stick through a reboot. From the GUI, I'd go into the folder Properties-Sharing. And then in Advanced Sharing I'd pick the name to share it as. And then under the "Share..." button I'd pick the users and the permissions I want to grant them. After "Apply" there's a pause -- I'm not sure what's happening here, but the dialog says "Sharing Items..." -- and then everything is okay. From the command line, I've done: net share MyFolder=F:\MyFolder cacls F:\MyFolder /G FirstUser:F cacls F:\MyFolder /G OtherUser:F And this almost works. I can see the share on the network then, but nobody has permissions to do anything. If I go into the GUI and change anything (and I can see my command-line changes in there already) and press "Apply" I get the: "Sharing Items.... This may take a few minutes" Dialog... and then Voila! It works. I get the "Your folder is shared" dialog with the command-line changes I made, along with the GUI change that I made to trigger the "Sharing Items..." dialog. Everything's peachy. Is a service being restarted? Which one? What's triggering the sharing to take effect? And -- more importantly -- how do I do it from the command line?

  Read the article

• SBS 2008 R2: Did something change with anonymous relays?

  - by gravyface

  Have noticed that prior documentation on setting up anonymous relays in SBS 2008 no longer work without some additional configuration. Used to be able to follow this documentation, which is basically: setup a new receive connector add the IP address(es) that will be permitted to relay check off "anonymous" under Permission Group and then run the Exchange shell script to grant permissions. Now what seems to be happening is that if the permitted IP address happens to fall within the same address space as another more restrictive Receive Connector (like the "Default SBS08" one) and possibly if it's ahead of the new Receive Connector alphabetically (haven't tested that yet), the relay attempt fails with "Client Was Not Authenticated" error. To get it to work, I had to modify the scope of the "Default SBS08" Receive Connector to exclude the one LAN IP that I wanted to allow relaying for. I can't recall ever having to do this for Exchange 2007 Standard and/or any other SBS 2008 servers I've setup over the last couple of years and I don't remember doing this and the wiki entry I added at the office doesn't mention it either. So my question is, has anyone else experienced this? Has there been a new change with R2 or perhaps an Exchange Service Pack?

  Read the article

• McAfee ePolicy-Orchestrator (ePO) - policy ownership by groups?

  - by bkr

  Is there a way to grant ownership of an ePO policy to a group? Alternatively, is there a permission that can be set that would allow owners of an ePO policy to add other owners to that policy without making them ePO admin? In the case I'm looking at, ePO is deployed within a large heterogeneous organization with a large amount of delegation in the form of create/modify policy rights to allow multiple IT departments to customize to their needs for their sections of the system tree. The problem is that the policies are owned by the creator of the policy. This causes problems when they leave (staff turnover) or when other people on their teams need the ability to modify the existing policy. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, only someone who is an ePO admin can change the owners. Even the owner of the policy cannot add other owners (unless they are also an ePO admin). Ideally, I should be able to assign ownership of a policy to a group - since that would be easier to manage than me or another admin having to continually fix policy ownership or remove orphaned polices. Even just allowing the owners of the polices to add other owners would be sufficient. How are other people handling policy ownership when dealing with a large amount of delegated control of polices? Is there a way to delegate this out without making users full ePO admins?

  Read the article

• Windows 7 logon script net use fails

  - by Bryan

  Our network PCs currently consists of Windows XP Professional on a mixed 2008/2003 domain, with exception to one machine, which is a new Windows 7 PC we have bought for testing before we deploy the operating system. But we have discovered a problem with our logon script which automatically maps network drives for our users. The logon scripts are done via User GPOs, but the script itself is just a .cmd file using net use. The permissions are perfectly fine, as the same user can log on to a Windows XP machine and get their drives mapped without problem, but this one drive mapping constantly fails. This is repeatable using the net use command, and fails every time - it actually prompts the user for a username and password when executed interactively, yet if we enter \\server\share from a run dialog, the contents of the network share appear and are accessible without any further authentication. The Windows 7 PC (just like the XP systems) are domain members and the account being used is a domain account, which does have access to the share (as stated, it works fine on XP). I fail to understand what is happening here, as other shares on the server get mapped on the Windows 7 system. More info: The effective permissions of the share in question only grant the user 'list' permission on the root directory, the share permissions are 'everyone,full control'. I've created a new share with the same permissions just to test if it was down to the 'list' permissions on the root directory, but the Windows 7 machine maps this one fine.

  Read the article

• Revamping an old and unstable office IT-solution using Windows Server and OpenVPN

  - by cmbrnt

  I've been given the cumbersome task to totally redo the IT-infrastructure for a customer's office. They are currently running Windows XP all over, with one computer acting as a file server with no control over which users have access to which files, and so on. To top it off, this file server also functions as a workstation, which means it gets rebooted every time the user notices some sluggish behavior or experiences problems with flash games. To say the least, this isn't working for them. Now - I've got a very slim budget, but I need to set up a new server, and I wish to run Windows Server 2008 on it. I also need the ability to access the network remotely via VPN. Would it be a good idea to install VMware ESXi 4.1 onto the new server, and then run Windows Server 2008 as well as a separate Debian install for openvpn on it? I don't like the Domain Controller for the future AD to also run a VPN-server, because of stability issues when something goes to hell with either of them. There will be no redundancy though. However, I'm not sure if there is something to gain by installing a VPN solution on the Windows Server itself, when it comes to accessing file shares on the network via VPN. I don't know how to enable users logging in via the VPN to access the remote files, since they will be accessing the network from their own home computers (which is indeed a really bad idea, but this is what I've got to work with). They won't be logged in to the windows Domain, but rather their home workgroups. I need to be able to grant access to files in certain directories based on the logged in AD-user, but every computer won't necessarily be configured to log into the domain. I'm not sure how to explain this in a good way, but I'd be happy to clarify if somethings not clear. Any help would be great, because I've got a feeling that I can't do this without introducing a bunch of costly new rules when it comes to their IT-solution. I'd rather leave that untouched and go on my merry way to the next assignment.

  Read the article

• Outlook 2010 IMAP account - send on behalf

  - by Master of Celebration

  So I was looking for a possibility to manage the mail distribution of online shops, newsfeeds, etc. and have a nice solution via distribution groups aka. alias addresses. In example, I register an account on eBay using "[email protected]" (where org.com is my company obviously). That address is an alias and can be managed on my on-premise mail server setting destination to somebody's mailbox independent from logging on to eBay - in case somebody else shall do the eBay-stuff, I can quick change the destination of that alias :-) So far, so good - and now to the problem: Using Microsoft Outlook 2010 and an IMAP account on our mail server, I cannot figure out how to remove that "on behalf of"-string visible in the from-field when sending a message under that [email protected] address. That's quite a pity, because especially eBay doesn't accept/forward mails not coming from the registered address.. Using other mail clients (e.g. Mozilla Thunderbird), the problem does not occur so I guess it's Outlook specific. I cannot "grant" permission to "send as", because that address is not a mailbox, but rather an alias only. Furthermore, the mail accounts are not Exchange, but IMAP! Does anybody have any other ideas to "remove" that annoying string? Consideration: We have to use Microsoft Outlook for some reason! :-)

  Read the article

• Allow members of a group to be unlocked by a specific account on AD

  - by JohnLBevan

  Background I'm creating a service to allow support staff to enable their firecall accounts out of hours (i.e. if there's an issue in the night and we can't get hold of someone with admin rights, another member of the support team can enable their personal firecall account on AD, which has previously been setup with admin rights). This service also logs a reason for the change, alerts key people, and a bunch of other bits to ensure that this change of access is audited / so we can ensure these temporary admin rights are used in the proper way. To do this I need the service account which my service runs under to have permissions to enable users on active directory. Ideally I'd like to lock this down so that the service account can only enable/disable users in a particular AD security group. Question How do you grant access to an account to enable/disable users who are members of a particular security group in AD? Backup Question If it's not possible to do this by security group, is there a suitable alternative? i.e. could it be done by OU, or would it be best to write a script to loop through all members of the security group and update the permissions on the objects (firecall accounts) themselves? Thanks in advance. Additional Tags (I don't yet have access to create new tags here, so listing below to help with keyword searches until it can be tagged & this bit editted/removed) DSACLS, DSACLS.EXE, FIRECALL, ACCOUNT, SECURITY-GROUP

  Read the article

• Copied a file with winscp; only winscp can see it

  - by nilbus

  I recently copied a 25.5GB file from another machine using WinSCP. I copied it to C:\beth.tar.gz, and WinSCP can still see the file. However no other app (including Explorer) can see the file. What might cause this, and how can I fix it? The details that might or might not matter WinSCP shows the size of the file (C:\beth.tar.gz) correctly as 27,460,124,080 bytes, which matches the filesize on the remote host Neither explorer, cmd (command line prompt w/ dir C:\), the 7Zip archive program, nor any other File Open dialog can see the beth.tar.gz file under C:\ I have configured Explorer to show hidden files I can move the file to other directories using WinSCP If I try to move the file to Users/, UAC prompts me for administrative rights, which I grant, and I get this error: Could not find this item The item is no longer located in C:\ When I try to transfer the file back to the remote host in a new directory, the transfer starts successfully and transfers data The transfer had about 30 minutes remaining when I left it for the night The morning after the file transfer, I was greeted with a message saying that the connection to the server had been lost. I don't think this is relevant, since I did not tell it to disconnect after the file was done transferring, and it likely disconnected after the file transfer finished. I'm using an old version of WinSCP - v4.1.8 from 2008 I can view the file properties in WinSCP: Type of file: 7zip (.gz) Location: C:\ Attributes: none (Ready-only, Hidden, Archive, or Ready for indexing) Security: SYSTEM, my user, and Administrators group have full permissions - everything other than "special permissions" is checked under Allow for all 3 users/groups (my user, Administrators, SYSTEM) What's going on?!

  Read the article

• Revamping an old and unstable IT-solution for a customer?

  - by cmbrnt

  I've been given the cumbersome task to totally redo the IT-infrastructure for a customer's office. They are currently running Windows XP all over, with one computer acting as a file server with no control over which users have access to which files, and so on. To top it off, this file server also functions as a workstation, which means it gets rebooted every time the user notices some sluggish behavior or experiences problems with flash games. To say the least, this isn't working for them. Now - I've got a very slim budget, but I need to set up a new server, and I wish to run Windows Server 2008 on it. I also need the ability to access the network remotely via VPN. Would it be a good idea to install VMware ESXi 4.1 onto the new server, and then run Windows Server 2008 as well as a separate Debian install for openvpn on it? I don't like the Domain Controller for the future AD to also run a VPN-server, because of stability issues when something goes to hell with either of them. There will be no redundancy though. However, I'm not sure if there is something to gain by installing a VPN solution on the Windows Server itself, when it comes to accessing file shares on the network via VPN. I don't know how to enable users logging in via the VPN to access the remote files, since they will be accessing the network from their own home computers (which is indeed a really bad idea, but this is what I've got to work with). They won't be logged in to the windows Domain, but rather their home workgroups. I need to be able to grant access to files in certain directories based on the logged in AD-user, but every computer won't necessarily be configured to log into the domain. I'm not sure how to explain this in a good way, but I'd be happy to clarify if somethings not clear. Any help would be great, because I've got a feeling that I can't do this without introducing a bunch of costly new rules when it comes to their IT-solution. I'd rather leave that untouched and go on my merry way to the next assignment.

  Read the article

• Reading log files from web application

  - by Egorinsk

  Hi! I want to write a small PHP application for monitoring logs on a Debian server, including syslog logs and Apache/PHP messages. The problem here is that Apache user (www-data) has no access to /var/log directory. What would be the best way to grant an access to logs for PHP application? Let's assume that log files can be really large, like hundreds of megabytes. I have some ideas: Write a shell script that would be run via sudo and tail last 512 Kb of log into a separate file that can be read by application - that's ineffective, because of forking a new process and having to read data twice Add www-data to adm group (that can read logs) - that's insecure Start a PHP process via cron every minute to read logs — that's not very good, because it doesn't allow real-time monitoring. Also, this script will be started even when I don't read logs, and consume CPU time (server is in the cloud, and I'll have to pay for it) Create a hardlink for all log files with lowered permissions - I guess, that won't work because logrotate could recreate log files and they'll change inode number. Start a separate nginx/Apache server under privileged user that may read logs. Maybe anyone got a better solution?

  Read the article

• Read access to Active Directory property (uSNChanged)

  - by Tom Ligda

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

  Read the article

• How to train users converting from PC to Mac/Apple at a small non profit?

  - by Everette Mills

  Background: I am part of a team that provides volunteer tech support to a local non profit. We are in the position to obtain a grant to update almost all of our computers (many of them 5 to 7 year old machines running XP), provide laptops for users that need them, etc. We are considering switching our users from PC (WinXP) to Macs. The technical aspects of switching will not be an issue for the team. We are in the process of planning data conversions, machine setup, server changes, etc regardless of whether we switch to Macs or much newer PCs. About 1/4 of the staff uses or has access to a Mac at home, these users already understand the basics of using the equipment. We have another set of (generally younger) users that are technically savvy and while slightly inconvenienced and slowed for a few days should be able to switch over quickly. Finally, several members of the staff are older and have many issues using there computers today. We think in the long run switching to Macs may provide a better user experience, fewer IT headaches, and more effective use of computers. The questions we have is what resources and training (webpages, Books, online training materials or online courses) do you recommend that we provide to users to enable the switchover to happen smoothly. Especially, with a focus on providing different levels of training and support to users with different skill levels. If you have done this in your own organization, what steps were successful, what areas were less successful?

  Read the article

• No "New Folder" button in windows 7

  - by user1125620

  My sibling's laptop is running windows 7 x64. The torrents folder in Documents doesn't show the New Folder button. ctrl+shift+n doesn't work either. I tried EVERYTHING here: Can't create new folder from anywhere in Windows 7 ..but nothing worked. As with the OP there, running the .reg file brings an error that says something about not being able to change the registry value while something is using it. I removed one entry at a time in the .reg file until I narrowed down the ones that were causing the problem, which were in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT/CLSID. The only different reg value, however, was in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID{11dbb47c-a525-400b-9e80-a54615a090c0}\InProcServer32, for which the default value was %SystemRoot%\system32\explorerframe.dll and the value trying to be set ExplorerFrame.dll. I'm on windows 7 32bit and that's the same value I have for the entry, so I doubt that's it. The only thing I think is slightly off is that there is a user group with a strange name that only has execute and read access, and I can't grant it full control. Every time I try, it acts as if it works, but doesn't change it. I tried booting into safe mode and changing it, but it did the same thing. It is the folder where utorrent puts any new downloads, so it's possible utorrent did something, though that's never happened to me before. edit: I had renamed the folder to something else to avoid the problem, and then went onto my own computer to try to figure out what was wrong (I personally don't like using the touchpad on laptops). While searching, my sibling starting watching a movie. I minimized the movie and saw that the same thing had happened to the folder I renamed. Also changed was the file layout. It showed the different days and the files modified on those days. So, I was able to fix it by doing: Clicking Organize Layout Menu Bar On the menu bar clicking View Arrange By Folder

  Read the article

• ASP.NET PowerShell Impersonation

  - by Ben

  I have developed an ASP.NET MVC Web Application to execute PowerShell scripts. I am using the VS web server and can execute scripts fine. However, a requirement is that users are able to execute scripts against AD to perform actions that their own user accounts are not allowed to do. Therefore I am using impersonation to switch the identity before creating the PowerShell runspace: Runspace runspace = RunspaceFactory.CreateRunspace(config); var currentuser = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent().Name; if (runspace.RunspaceStateInfo.State == RunspaceState.BeforeOpen) { runspace.Open(); } I have tested using a domain admin account and I get the following exception when calling runspace.Open(): Security Exception Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file. Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Requested registry access is not allowed. The web application is running in full trust and I have explicitly added the account I am using for impersonation to the local administrators group of the machine (even though the domain admins group was already there). I'm using advapi32.dll LogonUser call to perform the impersonation in a similar way to this post (http://blogs.msdn.com/webdav_101/archive/2008/09/25/howto-calling-exchange-powershell-from-an-impersonated-thead.aspx) Any help appreciated as this is a bit of a show stopper at the moment. Thanks Ben

  Read the article

• How to share session cookies between Internet Explorer and an ActiveX components hosted in a webpage

  - by jerem

  I am currently working on a .Net application which makes HTTP requests to some web applications hosted on a IIS server. The application is deployed through ClickOnce and is working fine on simple networks architectures. One of our customers has a very complex network involving a custom authentication server on which the user has first to log himself in order to be authenticated and get access to other applications on this network. Once authenticated on this server, a session cookie is created and sent to the user. Every time the user then makes a request on a secured server of the network, this cookie is checked to grant access to the user. If this cookie is not sent with the request, the user is redirected to the login page. The only browser used is Internet Explorer. This cookie cannot be accessed from our .net application since it is executed in another process than the Internet Explorer process which was used to log the user in, and thus is not sent with our requests, which cannot be completed since the server redirects every of our requests to the login page. I had a look at embedding my application into Internet Explorer by making the main control COM visible and creating it on an HTML page with an tag. It is working properly, however the sessions cookies set earlier in the browser are not sent when the ActiveX control makes web requests. I was hoping this sharing of the session information would be automatic (although I didn't really believe it). So my questions are : Is it possible to have access to this cookie in the embedded ActiveX? How? Does it make a difference to use a .Net COM-interop component instead of a "true" ActiveX control? Also, are there specific security words to describe this kind of behaviors (given that I am not an expert at all on security topics, this lack of proper terminology makes it a lot harder to find the needed resources)? My goal is to have my application's requests look the same from the requests made by the host browser's requests, and I thought that embedding the application as an ActiveX control into the browser was the only way to achieve this, however any suggestion on another to do this is welcome.

  Read the article

• Another Security Exception on GoDaddy after Login attempt

  - by Brian Boatright

  Host: GoDaddy Shared Hosting Trust Level: Medium The following happens after I submit a valid user/pass. The database has read/write permissions and when I remove the login requirement on an admin page that updates the database work as expected. Has anyone else had this issue or know what the problem is? Anyone? Server Error in '/' Application. Security Exception Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file. Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.FileIOPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed. Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. Stack Trace: [SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.FileIOPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed.] System.Security.CodeAccessSecurityEngine.Check(Object demand, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean isPermSet) +0 System.Security.CodeAccessPermission.Demand() +59 System.IO.FileStream.Init(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, Int32 rights, Boolean useRights, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, FileOptions options, SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES secAttrs, String msgPath, Boolean bFromProxy) +684 System.IO.FileStream..ctor(String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share) +114 System.Configuration.Internal.InternalConfigHost.StaticOpenStreamForRead(String streamName) +80 System.Configuration.Internal.InternalConfigHost.System.Configuration.Internal.IInternalConfigHost.OpenStreamForRead(String streamName, Boolean assertPermissions) +115 System.Configuration.Internal.InternalConfigHost.System.Configuration.Internal.IInternalConfigHost.OpenStreamForRead(String streamName) +7 System.Configuration.Internal.DelegatingConfigHost.OpenStreamForRead(String streamName) +10 System.Configuration.UpdateConfigHost.OpenStreamForRead(String streamName) +42 System.Configuration.BaseConfigurationRecord.InitConfigFromFile() +437 Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.1433; ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.1433

  Read the article

• WCF selfhosted service, installer class and netsh

  - by jeho

  I have a selfhosted WCF service application which I want to deploy by a msi installer package. The endpoint uses http port 8888. In order to startup the project under windows 2008 after installation I have to either run the program as administrator or have to edit the http settings with netsh: "netsh http add urlacl url=http://+:8888/ user=\Everyone" I want to edit the http settings from my installer class. Therefore I call the following method from the Install() method: public void ModifyHttpSettings() { string parameter = @"http add urlacl url=http://+:8888/ user=\Everyone"; System.Diagnostics.ProcessStartInfo psi = new System.Diagnostics.ProcessStartInfo("netsh", parameter); psi.Verb = "runas"; psi.RedirectStandardOutput = false; psi.CreateNoWindow = true; psi.WindowStyle = System.Diagnostics.ProcessWindowStyle.Hidden; psi.UseShellExecute = false; System.Diagnostics.Process.Start(psi); } This method will work for english versions of windows, but not for localized versions (The group Everyone has different names in localized versions). I have also tried to use Environment.UserName to allow access at least for the current logged on user. But this does also not work, because the installer class is run by the msi service which runs under the user SYSTEM. Hence Enviroment.UserName returns SYSTEM and that is not what I want. Is there a way to grant access to all (or at least for the current logged on) user to my selfhosted WCF service from a msi installer class?

  Read the article

• (Fluent) NHibernate Security Exception - ReflectionPermission

  - by PeterEysermans

  I've upgraded an ASP.Net Web application to the latest build of Fluent NHibernate (1.0.0.636) and the newest version of NHibernate (v2.1.2.4000). I've checked a couple of times that the application is running in Full trust. But I keep getting the following error: Security Exception Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file. Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.ReflectionPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed. Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. Stack Trace: [SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.ReflectionPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed.] System.Security.CodeAccessSecurityEngine.Check(Object demand, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean isPermSet) +0 System.Security.CodeAccessPermission.Demand() +54 System.Reflection.Emit.DynamicMethod.PerformSecurityCheck(Type owner, StackCrawlMark& stackMark, Boolean skipVisibility) +269 System.Reflection.Emit.DynamicMethod..ctor(String name, Type returnType, Type[] parameterTypes, Type owner, Boolean skipVisibility) +81 NHibernate.Bytecode.Lightweight.ReflectionOptimizer.CreateDynamicMethod(Type returnType, Type[] argumentTypes) +165 NHibernate.Bytecode.Lightweight.ReflectionOptimizer.GenerateGetPropertyValuesMethod(IGetter[] getters) +383 NHibernate.Bytecode.Lightweight.ReflectionOptimizer..ctor(Type mappedType, IGetter[] getters, ISetter[] setters) +108 NHibernate.Bytecode.Lightweight.BytecodeProviderImpl.GetReflectionOptimizer(Type mappedClass, IGetter[] getters, ISetter[] setters) +52 NHibernate.Tuple.Component.PocoComponentTuplizer..ctor(Component component) +231 NHibernate.Tuple.Component.ComponentEntityModeToTuplizerMapping..ctor(Component component) +420 NHibernate.Tuple.Component.ComponentMetamodel..ctor(Component component) +402 NHibernate.Mapping.Component.BuildType() +38 NHibernate.Mapping.Component.get_Type() +32 NHibernate.Mapping.SimpleValue.IsValid(IMapping mapping) +39 NHibernate.Mapping.RootClass.Validate(IMapping mapping) +61 NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration.ValidateEntities() +220 NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration.Validate() +16 NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration.BuildSessionFactory() +39 FluentNHibernate.Cfg.FluentConfiguration.BuildSessionFactory() in d:\Builds\FluentNH\src\FluentNHibernate\Cfg\FluentConfiguration.cs:93 Anyone had a similar error? I've seach the web / stackoverflow / NHibernate forums but only found people who had a problem when running in medium trust mode, not full trust. I've been developing for several months on this application on this machine with previous versions of Fluent NHibernate and NHibernate. The machine I'm running this on is 64-bit, you never know that this is relevant.

  Read the article

• Excel Plug-In Assembly Loading Problem (Access Denied)

  - by PlagueEditor

  I am developing an Excel 2003 add-in using Visual Studio 2008. My add-in loads fine; however, it loads plug-ins from other C# DLL's. I would like this to be done dynamically at run time so referencing them during development is something I would rather not do. Anyways, anytime I try to load a DLL from the Excel add-in at start up, it throws a security exception. This particular example is HTML Agility Pack. It's not a plug-in but a plug-in's dependency. But nonetheless it won't even load: {System.IO.FileLoadException: Could not load file or assembly 'HtmlAgilityPack, Version=1.4.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=bd319b19eaf3b43a' or one of its dependencies. Failed to grant permission to execute. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131418) File name: 'HtmlAgilityPack, Version=1.4.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=bd319b19eaf3b43a' ---> System.Security.Policy.PolicyException: Execution permission cannot be acquired. at System.Security.SecurityManager.ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence, PermissionSet reqdPset, PermissionSet optPset, PermissionSet denyPset, PermissionSet& denied, Boolean checkExecutionPermission) at System.Security.SecurityManager.ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence, PermissionSet reqdPset, PermissionSet optPset, PermissionSet denyPset, PermissionSet& denied, Int32& securitySpecialFlags, Boolean checkExecutionPermission) at System.Reflection.Assembly.nLoadFile(String path, Evidence evidence) at System.Reflection.Assembly.LoadFile(String path) at Cjack.Druid.SourcePluginManager.LoadPlugin(String filePath) in C:\Documents and Settings\Annie Tormey\My Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Projects\DruidAddin2003\Druid\SourcePluginManager.cs:line 26 } This is extremely frustrating because it runs perfectly fine for Office 2010 and as a standalone application. Thank-you to anyone who can give me an answer as to why this is happening or a solution to fix it. Thank-you for your time.

  Read the article

• How would you implement API key in WCF Data Service?

  - by rushonerok

  Is there a way to require an API key in the URL / or some other way of passing the service a private key in order to grant access to the data? I have this right now... using System; using System.Data.Services; using System.Data.Services.Common; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.ServiceModel.Web; using Numina.Framework; using System.Web; using System.Configuration; [System.ServiceModel.ServiceBehavior(IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults = true)] public class odata : DataService { public static void InitializeService(DataServiceConfiguration config) { config.SetEntitySetAccessRule("*", EntitySetRights.AllRead); //config.SetServiceOperationAccessRule("*", ServiceOperationRights.All); config.DataServiceBehavior.MaxProtocolVersion = DataServiceProtocolVersion.V2; } protected override void OnStartProcessingRequest(ProcessRequestArgs args) { HttpRequest Request = HttpContext.Current.Request; if(Request["apikey"] != ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ApiKey"]) throw new DataServiceException("ApiKey needed"); base.OnStartProcessingRequest(args); } } ...This works but it's not perfect because you cannot get at the metadata and discover the service through the Add Service Reference explorer. I could check if $metadata is in the url but it seems like a hack. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >