Search Results

Search found 5864 results on 235 pages for 'secure gateway'.

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

Page 41/235 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Windows 7 x64 wired connection problem. IP, gateway, dns assigned, can't ping. Network detected as "Network"

    - by Emil Lerch
    I am having a problem connecting to a specific wired network with my Latitude E6410 laptop. Other wired networks seem to work fine, but this one does not. I have a coworker with me with the same Intel 82577LM Gigabit Network card, and he can connect just fine. I've updated to the latest Intel drivers (11.8.75.0) and am not using Pro Set. I obtain all DHCP information just fine (IP, netmask, DNS server, default gateway). I cannot ping anything (internal or on the Internet - I tried pinging Google's public DNS servers by IP 8.8.8.8), nor can I get answers to any DNS queries through NS Lookup. Windows troubleshooting says everything is fine, but I can't get DNS responses. I've seen issues like this in the past that were related to link speed/duplex autonegotiaion failures, so I've tried manually setting link speed/duplex to all values one by one with no success. My coworker is using all default settings, so he is just using autonegotiate. Any ideas of other things to try?

    Read the article

  • Gateway laptop module bay light repeating 12 flashes - what error is that?

    - by Simurr
    I have a Gateway M465-E laptop currently running fine with a T2300E Core Duo installed. I wanted to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo. My brother has the same model laptop and that took a Core 2 Duo (T7200) just fine. Picked up a T7200 on ebay and installed it. Normally when booting all the indicator lights flash once and the fan spins up before the machine actually starts to POST. With the T7200 installed all the lights flash and the fan spins up, but the module bay activity light flashes 12 times repeatedly. I'm assuming this is an error code, but can find no information about it. There are no beep codes. I've removed the ram, HD, Bay module and no change. Switched back to the T2300E and everything works fine. Anyone know what that error code is? The motherboard was actually manufactured by Foxconn if that helps. Update 1 Returned the CPU as defective. I tested it in 3 M465-E's and all of them did exactly the same thing. I still have no idea what the error code is. I'd still like to know for future reference. Perhaps I should try removing the CPU from one of them and see what happens.

    Read the article

  • Nginx as reverse proxy: how to properly configure gateway timeout?

    - by user1281376
    We have configured Nginx as a reverse proxy to an Apache server farm, but I'm running into trouble with the gateway timeouts. Our Goal in human readable form is: "Deliver a request within one second, but if it really takes longer, deliver anyway", which for me translates into "Try the first Apache server in upstream for max 500ms. If we get a timeout / an error, try the next one and so on until we finally succeed." Now our relevant configuration is this: location @proxy { proxy_pass http://apache$request_uri; proxy_connect_timeout 1s; proxy_read_timeout 2s; } [...] upstream apache { server 127.0.0.1:8001 max_fails=1 fail_timeout=10s; server 10.1.x.x:8001 max_fails=1 fail_timeout=10s backup; server 10.1.x.x:8001 max_fails=1 fail_timeout=10s backup; server 10.1.x.x:8001 max_fails=1 fail_timeout=10s backup; } The problem here is that nginx seems to misunderstand this as "Try to get a response from the whole upstream cluster within one second and deliver a 50X error if we don't - without any limit on how long to try any upstream server", which is obviously not what we had in mind. Is there any way to get nginx to do what we want?

    Read the article

  • How do you make Bastille work and secure Ubuntu 12.04? It doesnt work for me `sudo bastille -x`

    - by BobMil
    I was able to install bastille from the normal repositories and then run the GUI. After going through the options and clicking OK to apply, it showed these errors. Do you know why Bastille wont work on Ubuntu 12.04? NOTE: Executing PSAD Specific Configuration NOTE: Executing File Permissions Specific Configuration NOTE: Executing Account Security Specific Configuration NOTE: Executing Boot Security Specific Configuration ERROR: Unable to open /etc/inittab as the swap file /etc/inittab.bastille already exists. Rename the swap file to allow Bastille to make desired file modifications. ERROR: open /etc/inittab.bastille failed... ERROR: open /etc/inittab failed. ERROR: Couldn't insert line to /etc/inittab, since open failed.NOTE: Executing Inetd Specific Configuration

    Read the article

  • What is the most secure way to archive a GKScore to be re-submitted later?

    - by Jonathan Sibley
    I'm looking for the safest way to archive and store a GKScore that needs to be re-submitted to Game Center (say, because the user didn't have a network connection at the time the score was earned). I would like to archive the GKScore instance in case the app is terminated before it can be successfully re-submitted to Game Center. My worry is that if it's archived to an instance of NSData and saved in a .plist, it would be easy to manipulate. Perhaps this worry is unjustified? NOTE: I posted a similar question on Stack Overflow only to realize that it's better asked here.

    Read the article

  • Is it really a security problem to have non secure assets on an ssl page?

    - by blockhead
    My understanding is that this is just an example of being overly cautious, but if my checkout form contains an unsecure asset on it, that doesn't endanger anybody's credit card numbers from being caught by a man-in-the-middle. I'm asking this because every once in while, maybe because of cached content or whatnot, somebody writes in saying that they are seeing this "error" (even though there are no unsecure assets on my page), but they want an explanation. So yes, I can tell all about encryption and certificates and trust and men-in-the-middle. But what do I tell them about this. How do I convince them that the site is 100% safe (and if it isn't let me know that I'm mistaken!)

    Read the article

  • VPN vs. SSH Tunnel: Which Is More Secure?

    - by Chris Hoffman
    VPNs and SSH tunnels can both securely “tunnel” network traffic over an encrypted connection. They’re similar in some ways, but different in others – if you’re trying to decide which to use, it helps to understand how each works. An SSH tunnel is often referred to as a “poor man’s VPN” because it can provide some of the same features as a VPN without the more complicated server setup process – however, it has some limitations. How to Use an Xbox 360 Controller On Your Windows PC Download the Official How-To Geek Trivia App for Windows 8 How to Banish Duplicate Photos with VisiPic

    Read the article

  • Organisation GitHub account. Secure to use for personal projects?

    - by Mackey18
    So a large client of mine gave me access to their Organisation GitHub account. With it came a login for myself (on github.companyname.com) and of course access to certain repos on their company account (by switching the user to the company via the button in the top left). Now I was wondering, since I can create private repos for myself, is it safe for me to use these for non-related projects or can the company administrators access my user's repos despite being private? My understanding of Github is limited as it is, so this extra layer of complexity from the organisation account isn't helping too much. Thanks,Mike

    Read the article

  • Why are the proposed BADSIG (on apt-get update) fixes secure?

    - by EvanED
    I'm running apt-get update, and I see errors like W: GPG error: http://us.archive.ubuntu.com precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG 40976EAF437D05B5 Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key <[email protected]> It's not hard to find instructions on how to fix these problems, for instance by asking for the new keys with apt-key adv --recv-keys or rebuilding the cache; so I'm not asking about how to fix these. But why is this the right thing to do? Why is "oh, I need new keys? Cool, go get new keys" not just defeating the purpose of having a signed repository in the first place? Are the keys signed by a master key that apt-key checks? Should we be doing some additional validation to ensure that we're getting legitimate keys?

    Read the article

  • Would it be practical/secure to import my GPG keys into (Open)SSH?

    - by InkBlend
    I know a bit about computer security, and well as about the concept of public and private keys. I also know that both GPG and (Open)SSH use the public/private key system. My question is, is there any reason that I would not want to use my GPG keys as authentication for SSH? Please note that, while a have a little bit more experience with Linux, GPG, and SSH than the average computer user, I am by no means an expert. Please be patient and point out any mistakes that you might see.

    Read the article

  • What is the most secure environment for multiple CMS sites? [closed]

    - by Brian Gulino
    I wish to run about 50 Joomla or WordPress low-traffic websites on 1 server, or part of a server. Each website will be managed by its own, naive owner who will have be able to access the Joomla or Wordpress backend of the website. I am concerned about security and isolation as my users will periodically get into trouble by not protecting their sites properly. Two alternatives I know of exist: Run one Linux system with multiple websites under Apache. Follow current Joomla and WordPress security tips. Increase the isolation of the individual sites by using mpm-itk, which will allow each website to run as its own user. The alternative to this is to run virtualization software such as the Xen hypervisor. Each site would have its own, virtual Linux system. I lack the experience needed to make this decision and I am asking which path to take. Obviously, there may be other alternatives that I haven't considered.

    Read the article

  • How should a non-IT manager secure the long-term maintenance and development of essential legacy software?

    - by user105977
    I've been hunting for a place to ask this question for quite a while; maybe this is the place, although I'm afraid it's not the kind of "question with an answer" this site would prefer. We are a small, very specialized, benefits administration firm with an extremely useful, robust collection of software, some written in COBOL but most in BASIC. Two full-time consultants have ably maintained and improved this system over more than 30 years. Needless to say they will soon retire. (One of them has been desperate to retire for several years but is loyal to a fault and so hangs on despite her husband's insistence that golf should take priority.) We started down the path of converting to a system developed by one of only three firms in the country that offer the type of software we use. We now feel that although this this firm is theoretically capable of completing the conversion process, they don't have the resources to do so timely, and we have come to believe that they will be unable to offer the kind of service we need to run our business. (There's nothing like being able to set one's own priorities and having the authority to allocate one's resources as one sees fit.) Hardware is not a problem--we are able to emulate very effectively on modern servers. If COBOL and BASIC were modern languages, we'd be willing to take the risk that we could find replacements for our current consultants going forward. It seems like there ought to be a business model for an IT support firm that concentrates on legacy platforms like this and provides the programming and software development talent to support a system like ours, removing from our backs the risks of finding the right programming talent and the job of convincing younger programmers that they can have a productive, rewarding career, in part in an old, non-sexy language like BASIC. Where do I find such firms?

    Read the article

  • Is dual-booting an OS more or less secure than running a virtual machine?

    - by Mark
    I run two operating systems on two separate disk partitions on the same physical machine (a modern MacBook Pro). In order to isolate them from each other, I've taken the following steps: Configured /etc/fstab with ro,noauto (read-only, no auto-mount) Fully encrypted each partition with a separate encryption key (committed to memory) Let's assume that a virus infects my first partition unbeknownst to me. I log out of the first partition (which encrypts the volume), and then turn off the machine to clear the RAM. I then un-encrypt and boot into the second partition. Can I be reasonably confident that the virus has not / cannot infect both partitions, or am I playing with fire here? I realize that MBPs don't ship with a TPM, so a boot-loader infection going unnoticed is still a theoretical possibility. However, this risk seems about equal to the risk of the VMWare/VirtualBox Hypervisor being exploited when running a guest OS, especially since the MBP line uses UEFI instead of BIOS. This leads to my question: is the dual-partitioning approach outlined above more or less secure than using a Virtual Machine for isolation of services? Would that change if my computer had a TPM installed? Background: Note that I am of course taking all the usual additional precautions, such as checking for OS software updates daily, not logging in as an Admin user unless absolutely necessary, running real-time antivirus programs on both partitions, running a host-based firewall, monitoring outgoing network connections, etc. My question is really a public check to see if I'm overlooking anything here and try to figure out if my dual-boot scheme actually is more secure than the Virtual Machine route. Most importantly, I'm just looking to learn more about security issues. EDIT #1: As pointed out in the comments, the scenario is a bit on the paranoid side for my particular use-case. But think about people who may be in corporate or government settings and are considering using a Virtual Machine to run services or applications that are considered "high risk". Are they better off using a VM or a dual-boot scenario as I outlined? An answer that effectively weighs any pros/cons to that trade-off is what I'm really looking for in an answer to this post. EDIT #2: This question was partially fueled by debate about whether a Virtual Machine actually protects a host OS at all. Personally, I think it does, but consider this quote from Theo de Raadt on the OpenBSD mailing list: x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes. -http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Virtualization_Security By quoting Theo's argument, I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply pointing out that there are multiple perspectives here, so I'm trying to find out more about the issue.

    Read the article

  • Could I get secure proxy server service free? [closed]

    - by lamwaiman1988
    It comes to my mind that when I use any proxy server, the information will be submit to the proxy server including the username/password of any website I login. This way I risk my identity. I've heard that there are some secure proxy server but can I found any with reasonable price, probably free? ( By the way, VPN is also considered but they are expensive for personal usage ). Even if I can find such service, how can I know that they won't exploit my information?

    Read the article

  • nginx 502 bad gateway - fastcgi not listening? (Debian 5)

    - by Sean
    I have experience with nginx but it's always been pre-installed for me (via VPS.net pre-configured image). I really like what it does for me, and now I'm trying to install it on my own server with apt-get. This is a fairly fresh Debian 5 install. I have few extra packages installed but they're all .deb's, no manual compiling or anything crazy going on. Apache is already installed but I disabled it. I did apt-get install nginx and that worked fine. Changed the config around a bit for my needs, although the same problem I'm about to describe happens even with the default config. It took me a while to figure out that the default debian package for nginx doesn't spawn fastcgi processes automatically. That's pretty lame, but I figured out how to do that with this script, which I found posted on many different web sites: #!/bin/bash ## ABSOLUTE path to the PHP binary PHPFCGI="/usr/bin/php5-cgi" ## tcp-port to bind on FCGIPORT="9000" ## IP to bind on FCGIADDR="127.0.0.1" ## number of PHP children to spawn PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN=10 ## number of request before php-process will be restarted PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS=1000 # allowed environment variables sperated by spaces ALLOWED_ENV="ORACLE_HOME PATH USER" ## if this script is run as root switch to the following user USERID=www-data ################## no config below this line if test x$PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN = x; then PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN=5 fi ALLOWED_ENV="$ALLOWED_ENV PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN" ALLOWED_ENV="$ALLOWED_ENV PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS" ALLOWED_ENV="$ALLOWED_ENV FCGI_WEB_SERVER_ADDRS" if test x$UID = x0; then EX="/bin/su -m -c \"$PHPFCGI -q -b $FCGIADDR:$FCGIPORT\" $USERID" else EX="$PHPFCGI -b $FCGIADDR:$FCGIPORT" fi echo $EX # copy the allowed environment variables E= for i in $ALLOWED_ENV; do E="$E $i=${!i}" done # clean environment and set up a new one nohup env - $E sh -c "$EX" &> /dev/null & When I do a "ps -A | grep php5-cgi", I see the 10 processes running, that should be ready to listen. But when I try to view a web page via nginx, I just get a 502 bad gateway error. After futzing around a bit, I tried telneting to 127.0.0.1 9000 (fastcgi is listening on port 9000, and nginx is configured to talk to that port), but it just immediately closes the connection. This makes me think the problem is with fastcgi, but I'm not sure what I can do to test it. It may just be closing the connection because it's not getting fed any data to process, but it closes immediately so that makes me think otherwise. So... any advice? I can't figure it out. It doesn't help that it's 1AM, but I'm going crazy here!

    Read the article

  • How to make MAMP PRO secure enough to serve as webserver, if possible?

    - by Andrei
    Hi, my task is to setup a MAMP webserver for our website in the easiest way so it can be managed by my colleagues without experience in server administration. MAMP PRO is an excellent solution, but some guys don't suggest to use it for serving external requests. Could you explain why it is bad (in details if possible) and how to make it secure enough to be a full-scale and not-only-local webserver? Is there a better solution?

    Read the article

  • How to make MAMP PRO secure enough to serve as webserver? Is it possible?

    - by Andrei
    Hi, my task is to setup a MAMP webserver for our website in the easiest way so it can be managed by my colleagues without experience in server administration. MAMP PRO is an excellent solution, but some guys don't suggest to use it for serving external requests. Could you explain why it is bad (in details if possible) and how to make it secure enough to be a full-scale and not-only-local webserver? Is there a better solution?

    Read the article

  • How would you change a home wireless router with a self-signed admin site certificate to be more secure?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • How to secure postfix to find out whether the emails are coming really from the sender?

    - by codeworxx
    Is it possible to secure postfix in a way, that incoming emails are checked on whether the email comes really from the sender? Is that possible to write php script and chose a sender, like the mail is really coming from the sender and what are the possibilities for postfix to find out that this mail is not actually coming from the real sender? What I have found out and activated are the options smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_unknown_sender_domain unknown_address_reject_code = 554 smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_unknown_client unknown_client_reject_code = 554 Please mention, whether I have missed out on any points!

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >