Search Results

Search found 1329 results on 54 pages for 'aes encrypt'.

Page 44/54 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Can I configure Wndows NDES server to use Triple DES (3DES) algorithm for PKCS#7 answer encryption?

    - by O.Shevchenko
    I am running SCEP client to enroll certificates on NDES server. If OpenSSL is not in FIPS mode - everything works fine. In FIPS mode i get the following error: pkcs7_unwrap():pkcs7.c:708] error decrypting inner PKCS#7 139968442623728:error:060A60A3:digital envelope routines:FIPS_CIPHERINIT:disabled for fips:fips_enc.c:142: 139968442623728:error:21072077:PKCS7 routines:PKCS7_decrypt:decrypt error:pk7_smime.c:557: That's because NDES server uses DES algorithm to encrypt returned PKCS#7 packet. I used the following debug code: /* Copy enveloped data from PKCS#7 */ bytes = BIO_read(pkcs7bio, buffer, sizeof(buffer)); BIO_write(outbio, buffer, bytes); p7enc = d2i_PKCS7_bio(outbio, NULL); /* Get encryption PKCS#7 algorithm */ enc_alg=p7enc->d.enveloped->enc_data->algorithm; evp_cipher=EVP_get_cipherbyobj(enc_alg->algorithm); printf("evp_cipher->nid = %d\n", evp_cipher->nid); The last string always prints: evp_cipher-nid = 31 defined in openssl-1.0.1c/include/openssl/objects.h #define SN_des_cbc "DES-CBC" #define LN_des_cbc "des-cbc" #define NID_des_cbc 31 I use 3DES algorithm for PKCS7 requests encryption in my code (pscep.enc_alg = (EVP_CIPHER *)EVP_des_ede3_cbc()) and NDES server accepts these requests, but it always returns answer encrypted with DES. Can I configure Wndows NDES server to use Triple DES (3DES) algorithm for PKCS#7 answer encryption?

    Read the article

  • CoreStore Encryption Error on Mac Lion

    - by Michael
    I am trying to encrypt an external drive using diskutil CoreStorage on Mac Lion 10.7.4. I thought the only requirements were that the drive have GUID partition scheme and Journaled HFS+ file system. I think my drive is configured accordingly but when I type the following command I get an error message back: Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil cs convert disk2 -passphrase TestPassword Error converting disk to CoreStorage: The given file system is not supported on Core Storage (-69756) Here are the details reported for the drive in question: Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil list disk2 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *500.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Test1 499.8 GB disk2s2 Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil list disk2 /dev/disk2 #: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER 0: GUID_partition_scheme *500.1 GB disk2 1: EFI 209.7 MB disk2s1 2: Apple_HFS Test1 499.8 GB disk2s2 Michaels-MacBook-Pro:~ Michael$ diskutil info disk2s2 Device Identifier: disk2s2 Device Node: /dev/disk2s2 Part of Whole: disk2 Device / Media Name: Test1 Volume Name: Test1 Escaped with Unicode: Test1 Mounted: Yes Mount Point: /Volumes/Test1 Escaped with Unicode: /Volumes/Test1 File System Personality: Journaled HFS+ Type (Bundle): hfs Name (User Visible): Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Journal: Journal size 40960 KB at offset 0xe8e000 Owners: Disabled Partition Type: Apple_HFS OS Can Be Installed: Yes Media Type: Generic Protocol: FireWire SMART Status: Not Supported Volume UUID: 1024D0B8-1C45-3057-B040-AE5C3841DABF Total Size: 499.8 GB (499763888128 Bytes) (exactly 976101344 512-Byte-Blocks) Volume Free Space: 499.3 GB (499315826688 Bytes) (exactly 975226224 512-Byte-Blocks) Device Block Size: 512 Bytes Read-Only Media: No Read-Only Volume: No Ejectable: Yes Whole: No Internal: No I'm a little concerned that the "Partition Type: Apple_HFS" entry is causing the problem, but I don't know how to change that. I only seem to be able to control the "File System Personality: Journaled HFS+" in Disk Utility. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

    Read the article

  • Create SAMBA node trust relationship to Windows 2003 PDC server

    - by Rod Regier
    I am having problems creating a trust relationship between an OpenVMS/IA64 node running V/IA64 8.3-1H1, TCPIP 5.6 ECO 5, CIFS 1.1 ECO1 PS11 (SAMBA 3.0.28a) and Windows 2003 server running as a PDC. I do have two other OpenVMS/Alpha nodes running V/A 8.3, TCPIP 5.6 ECO 4, CIS 1.1 ECO1 PS10 (SAMBA 3.0.28a) with working trust relationships to the same Windows 2003 server. Looking for assistance in resolving the trust "handshake". \\ Details from failing node. Unless otherwise noted, corresponding files on working nodes are similar or identical. SMB.CONF extract: [global] server string = Samba %v running on %h (OpenVMS) workgroup = WILMA netbios name = %h security = DOMAIN encrypt passwords = Yes name resolve order = lmhosts host wins bcast Password server = * log file = /samba$log/log.%m printcap name = /sys$manager/ucx$printcap.dat guest account = DYMAX print command = print %f/queue=%p/delete/passall/name="""""%s""""" lprm command = delete/entry=%j map archive = No printing = OpenVMS net rpc testjoin [2010/08/13 16:09:28, 0] SAMBA$SRC:[SOURCE.RPC_CLIENT]CLI_PIPE.C;1:(2443) get_schannel_session_key: could not fetch trust account password for domain 'WILMA' [2010/08/13 16:09:28, 0] SAMBA$SRC:[SOURCE.UTILS]NET_RPC_JOIN.C;1:(72) net_rpc_join_ok: failed to get schannel session key from server W2K3AD2 for domain WILMA. Error was NT_STATUS_CANT_ACCESS_DOMAIN_I NFO Join to domain 'WILMA' is not valid net rpc join "-Uaccount%password" tdb_open_isam: error verifying status of file SAMBA$ROOT:[PRIVATE]secrets.tdb tdb_open_isam: errno value = 1 [2010/08/13 16:21:13, 0] SAMBA$SRC:[SOURCE.PASSDB]SECRETS.C;1:(72) Failed to open /SAMBA$ROOT/PRIVATE/secrets.tdb [2010/08/13 16:21:13, 0] SAMBA$SRC:[SOURCE.UTILS]NET_RPC.C;1:(322) error storing domain sid for WILMA tdb_open_isam: error verifying status of file SAMBA$ROOT:[PRIVATE]secrets.tdb tdb_open_isam: errno value = 1 [2010/08/13 16:21:13, 0] SAMBA$SRC:[SOURCE.PASSDB]SECRETS.C;1:(72) Failed to open /SAMBA$ROOT/PRIVATE/secrets.tdb [2010/08/13 16:21:13, 0] SAMBA$SRC:[SOURCE.UTILS]NET_RPC_JOIN.C;1:(409) error storing domain sid for WILMA Unable to join domain WILMA. \\ Example from other node: net rpc testjoin Join to 'WILMA' is OK

    Read the article

  • PPTP Client setup, Fedora 17

    - by Suarez Romina
    I am trying to connect to hidemyass.com VPN services via PPTP, but I am having issues understanding why it isn't working, since I don't get a warning or fatal error and my IP remains the same. This is how i create the connection: [root@lasvegas-nv-datacenter ~]# pptpsetup --create TUNNELNAME --server 199.58.165.20 --username MYUSERNAME --password MYPASSWORD --encrypt --start And this is the output: Using interface ppp0 Connect: ppp0 <-- /dev/pts/1 CHAP authentication succeeded MPPE 128-bit stateless compression enabled local IP address 10.200.21.14 remote IP address 10.200.20.1 After that, I check the log and this is what i get: [root@lasvegas-nv-datacenter ~]# tail -f /var/log/messages Aug 24 11:25:33 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pptp[3892]: anon log[ctrlp_rep:pptp_ctrl.c:254]: Sent control packet type is 1 'Start-Control-Connection-Request' Aug 24 11:25:33 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pptp[3892]: anon log[ctrlp_disp:pptp_ctrl.c:754]: Received Start Control Connection Reply Aug 24 11:25:33 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pptp[3892]: anon log[ctrlp_disp:pptp_ctrl.c:788]: Client connection established. Aug 24 11:25:34 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pptp[3892]: anon log[ctrlp_rep:pptp_ctrl.c:254]: Sent control packet type is 7 'Outgoing-Call-Request' Aug 24 11:25:34 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pptp[3892]: anon log[ctrlp_disp:pptp_ctrl.c:873]: Received Outgoing Call Reply. Aug 24 11:25:34 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pptp[3892]: anon log[ctrlp_disp:pptp_ctrl.c:912]: Outgoing call established (call ID 0, peer's call ID 20096). Aug 24 11:25:38 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pppd[3884]: CHAP authentication succeeded Aug 24 11:25:38 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pppd[3884]: MPPE 128-bit stateless compression enabled Aug 24 11:25:38 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pppd[3884]: local IP address 10.200.21.14 Aug 24 11:25:38 lasvegas-nv-datacenter pppd[3884]: remote IP address 10.200.20.1 Can someone help me? Basically, i Ieed to connect to the VPN and have my IP changed after the connection. I read a lot of guides but still cannot understand why I don't get a connection.

    Read the article

  • Vserver: secure mails from a hacked webservice

    - by lukas
    I plan to rent and setup a vServer with Debian xor CentOS. I know from my host, that the vServers are virtualized with linux-vserver. Assume there is a lighthttpd and some mail transfer agent running and we have to assure that if the lighthttpd will be hacked, the stored e-mails are not readable easily. For me, this sounds impossible but may I missed something or at least you guys can validate the impossibility... :) I think basically there are three obvious approaches. The first is to encrypt all the data. Nevertheless, the server would have to store the key somewhere so an attacker (w|c)ould figure that out. Secondly one could isolate the critical services like lighthttpd. Since I am not allowed to do 'mknod' or remount /dev in a linux-vserver, it is not possible to setup a nested vServer with lxc or similar techniques. The last approach would be to do a chroot but I am not sure if it would provide enough security. Further I have not tried yet, if I am able to do a chroot in a linux-vserver...? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Postfix Gmail SMTP Relay Not Working

    - by Nick DeMayo
    I currently have postfix set up to relay messages from my websites through gmail, and up until recently it was working perfectly. However, within the last week or so (not really sure when) I started getting the below error whenever attempting to send an email: Jul 20 07:40:46 localhost postfix/smtp[11958]: connect to smtp.gmail.com[2001:4860:800a::6c]:587: Network is unreachable Jul 20 07:40:46 localhost postfix/smtp[11958]: connect to smtp.gmail.com[173.194.76.109]:587: Connection refused Jul 20 07:40:46 localhost postfix/smtp[11958]: connect to smtp.gmail.com[173.194.76.108]:587: Connection refused Here is my configuration file: # See /usr/share/postfix/main.cf.dist for a commented, more complete version # Debian specific: Specifying a file name will cause the first # line of that file to be used as the name. The Debian default # is /etc/mailname. #myorigin = /etc/mailname smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Ubuntu) biff = no # appending .domain is the MUA's job. append_dot_mydomain = no # Uncomment the next line to generate "delayed mail" warnings #delay_warning_time = 4h #readme_directory = no # TLS parameters smtpd_tls_cert_file=/etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem smtpd_tls_key_file=/etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key smtpd_use_tls=yes smtpd_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtpd_scache smtp_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtp_scache # See /usr/share/doc/postfix/TLS_README.gz in the postfix-doc package for # information on enabling SSL in the smtp client. myhostname = [my domain name] alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases #myorigin = /etc/mailname mydestination = [my host name], localhost.localdomain, localhost relayhost = [smtp.gmail.com]:587 mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 mailbox_size_limit = 0 recipient_delimiter = + inet_interfaces = loopback-only inet_protocols = all ########################################## ##### non debconf entries start here ##### ##### client TLS parameters ##### smtp_tls_loglevel=1 smtp_tls_security_level=encrypt smtp_sasl_auth_enable=yes smtp_sasl_password_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/sasl/passwd smtp_sasl_security_options = noanonymous ##### map username@localhost to [email protected] ##### smtp_generic_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/generic Nothing changed on my server, as far as I know...any ideas what could have caused it to stop working?

    Read the article

  • How to Protect Sensitive (HIPAA) SQL Server Standard Data and Log Files

    - by Quesi
    I am dealing with electronic personal health information (ePHI or PHI) and HIPAA regulations require that only authorized users can access ePHI. Column-level encryption may be of value for some of the data, but I need the ability to do like searches on some of the PHI fields such as name. Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) is a feature of SQL Server 2008 for encrypting database and log files. As I understand it this prevents someone who gains access to the MDF, LDF, or backup files from being able to do anything with the files because they are encrypted. TDE is only on enterprise and developer versions of SQL Server and enterprise is cost-prohibitive for my particular scenario. How can I get similar protection on SQL Server Standard? Is there a way to encrypt the database and backup files (is there a third-party tool)? Or just as good, is there a way to prevent the files from being used if the disk were attached to another machine (linux or windows)? Administrator access to the files from the same machine is fine, but I just want to prevent any issues if the disk were removed and hooked up to another machine. What are some of the solutions for this that are out there?

    Read the article

  • Samba 3.5 Shadow Copy for Windows 7

    - by Prashanth Sundaram
    Over the past several days I have been trying to get the shadow to work with samba but haven’t been successful. Can someone check below config and let me know if I am missing something? We are using Equallogic SAN and iSCSI LUNS to mount volumes. I can cleanly access samba shares on Windows 7 clients but just not shadow copy. I have referred the official how-to but couldn’t get it to work. I see these messages in the logs. Any help is deeply appreciated. [2012/10/31 12:20:53.549863, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:2170(call_nt_transact_ioctl) FSCTL_GET_SHADOW_COPY_DATA: connectpath /fs/test-01, failed. [2012/10/31 12:21:13.887198, 0] modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c:734(shadow_copy2_get_shadow_copy2_data) shadow:snapdir not found for /fs/test-01 in get_shadow_copy_data [2012/10/31 12:21:13.887265, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:2170(call_nt_transact_ioctl) FSCTL_GET_SHADOW_COPY_DATA: connectpath /fs/test-01, failed. == Samba pkgs == samba-3.5.10-116.el6_2.x86_64 samba-common-3.5.10-116.el6_2.x86_64 samba-winbind-clients-3.5.10-116.el6_2.x86_64 samba-client-3.5.10-116.el6_2.x86_64 === df –h == First is the iSCSI LUN and 2 others are snapshots. /dev/mapper/eql-0-fs-test01 5.0G 2.3G 2.5G 48% /fs/test-01 /dev/mapper/eql-2-0+fs-test01 5.0G 2.3G 2.5G 48% /fs/test-01/@GMT-2012.10.26-17.32.42/fs/test-01 (SNAPSHOT-1) /dev/mapper/eql-d-0+fs-test01 5.0G 2.3G 2.5G 48% /fs/test-01/@GMT-2012.10.31-11.52.42/fs/test-01 (SNAPSHOT- 2) ===/etc/samba/smb.conf === [global] workgroup = DOMAIN server string = Samba Server Version %v security = ads realm = DOMAIN.CORP encrypt passwords = yes guest account = nobody map to guest = bad uid log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log domain master = no local master = no preferred master = no os level = 0 load printers = no show add printer wizard = no printable = no printcap name = /dev/null disable spoolss = yes follow symlinks = yes wide links = yes unix extensions = no [test] comment = Test Directories path = /fs/test-01 vfs objects = shadow_copy2 #shadow_copy2: sort = desc #shadow: localtime = yes #shadow: snapdir = /fs/test-01/test #shadow: basedir = /fs/test-01 guest ok = yes writeable = yes map archive = no force create mode = 0660 force directory mode = 2770 inherit owner = yes inherit permissions = yes All feedback is welcome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Variable directory names over SCP

    - by nedm
    We have a backup routine that previously ran from one disk to another on the same server, but have recently moved the source data to a remote server and are trying to replicate the job via scp. We need to run the script on the target server, and we've set up key-based scp (no username/password required) between the two servers. Using scp to copy specific files and directories works perfectly: scp -r -p -B [email protected]:/mnt/disk1/bsource/filename.txt /mnt/disk2/btarget/ However, our previous routine iterates through directories on the source disk to determine which files to copy, then runs them individually through gpg encryption. Is there any way to do this only by using scp? Again, this script needs to run from the target server, and the user the job runs under only has scp (no ssh) access to the target system. The old job would look something like this: #Change to source dir cd /mnt/disk1 #Create variable to store # directories named by date YYYYMMDD j="20000101/" #Iterate though directories in the current dir # to get the most recent folder name for i in $(ls -d */); do if [ "$j" \< "$i" ]; then j=${i%/*} fi done #Encrypt individual files from $j to target directory cd ./${j%%}/bsource/ for k in $(ls -p | grep -v /$); do sudo /usr/bin/gpg -e -r "Backup Key" --batch --no-tty -o "/mnt/disk2/btarget/$k.gpg" "$/mnt/disk1/$j/bsource/$k" done Can anyone suggest how to do this via scp from the target system? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • When to use Truecrypt, and when not to?

    - by tm77
    I have about 30 (this number will most likely grow over the next few years to 50 or more) unencrypted laptops that I have been tasked to encrypt (entire drive). These machines will be used off site regularly by my users. These machines are running Windows 7 and XP (about 50/50), but more Windows 7 every month. I have experience with Truecrypt, and have had no issues. It appears to be THE solution for a free solution. My concern with Truecrypt is that my users will have 2 passswords needed to login to their machines. Also, I need to choose to either have 1 password for my organization, or carefully document each machine's password (management nightmare). In my mind, choosing between a managed and a free encryption solution is primarily based on the NUMBER of machines that will be encrypted and supported. Two questions: From a management standpoint, what is the tipping point of users where a managed solution would pay for itself over Truecrypt? What are some good third party solutions? (I will consider Bitlocker, but the price to upgrade Windows 7 licenses is a turn-off) I would love to hear from some admins with experience in supporting encrypted machines in a corporate environment. Many thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Samba between Ubuntu server 10.10 and Windows Vista, Windows 7

    - by chepukha
    Hi all, I have a linux box running Linux server ubuntu 10.10. I have installed Samba on this linux box and want to share files with my laptops which run Windows Vista home and Windows 7 home. I have been struggling with the setup for almost a month but couldn't get it right. If I try to access share folder from Windows Vista, I get message "Windows cannot access \\server_ip_address". Error code: 0x80070035. The network path was not found. If I access from Windows 7, then after entering password to login I can see the list of share folders on Linux box. But if I click on a share folder, I get the same error message as above. Tail /var/log/samba/log.windows7-pc I got the following message: [2011/03/16 00:17:41.427238, 0] smbd/service.c:988(make_connection_snum) canonicalize_connect_path failed for service sharemedia, path /root/sharemedia Here is my setting in smb.conf [global] share modes = yes netbios name = Samba workgroup = WORKGROUP wins support = yes encrypt passwords = true [sharemedia] comment = Tesing sharing using Samba path=/root/sharemedia/ public = yes valid users = samba_usr_name ; make sure all files are sensible permissions create mask = 0660 force create mask = 0660 directory mask = 2770 force directory mask = 2770 directory security mask = 0000 ; Normal share parameters read only = no browseable = yes writable = yes guest ok = no

    Read the article

  • Easiest way to send encrypted email?

    - by johnnyb10
    To comply with Massachusetts's new personal information protection law, my company needs to (among other things) ensure that anytime personal information is sent via email, it's encrypted. What is the easiest way to do this? Basically, I'm looking for something that will require the least amount of effort on the part of the recipient. If at all possible, I really want to avoid them having to download a program or go through any steps to generate a key pair, etc. So command-line GPG-type stuff is not an option. We use Exchange Server and Outlook 2007 as our email system. Is there a program that we can use to easily encrypt an email and then fax or call the recipient with a key? (Or maybe our email can include a link to our website containing our public key, that the recipient can download to decrypt the mail?) We won't have to send many of these encrypted emails, but the people who will be sending them will not be particularly technical, so I want it to be as easy as possible. Any recs for good programs would be great. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • cannot connect to sql server express from sql server standard

    - by Jackson Sunuwar
    ... like my title says... I cannot connect to my instance on sql server express from sql server standard... I have tried disabling firing wall and checked sqlbrowser is started but for some reason I cannnot connect to my datbase... called server_name\sqlexpress.. I have a virtual machine and a full scale MS SQL Server 2008 R2 running on it... and I have several other vm running sqlexpress. they run fine and I can connect to them using sqlexpress... but when i try to access from sqlserver... I get this error. A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: -1) Digging deep into the error, I found this Error Number: -1 Severity: 20 State: 0 and finally this... Program Location: at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj) at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Connect(ServerInfo serverInfo, SqlInternalConnectionTds connHandler, Boolean ignoreSniOpenTimeout, Int64 timerExpire, Boolean encrypt, Boolean trustServerCert, Boolean integratedSecurity, SqlConnection owningObject) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.AttemptOneLogin(ServerInfo serverInfo, String newPassword, Boolean ignoreSniOpenTimeout, Int64 timerExpire, SqlConnection owningObject) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.LoginNoFailover(String host, String newPassword, Boolean redirectedUserInstance, SqlConnection owningObject, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, Int64 timerStart) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.OpenLoginEnlist(SqlConnection owningObject, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, String newPassword, Boolean redirectedUserInstance) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds..ctor(DbConnectionPoolIdentity identity, SqlConnectionString connectionOptions, Object providerInfo, String newPassword, SqlConnection owningObject, Boolean redirectedUserInstance) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnectionFactory.CreateConnection(DbConnectionOptions options, Object poolGroupProviderInfo, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnection owningConnection) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.CreateNonPooledConnection(DbConnection owningConnection, DbConnectionPoolGroup poolGroup) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.Open() at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.SqlStudio.Explorer.ObjectExplorerService.ValidateConnection(UIConnectionInfo ci, IServerType server) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.UI.ConnectionDlg.Connector.ConnectionThreadUser() Firewall is turned off on the VM that's running mssqlserver... I turned of firewall on one of the vm that's running the sqlexpress but I still get the error... can someone please help... thank you

    Read the article

  • Email test deferred (mail transport unavailable) with ClamAV

    - by dirt
    I'm trying to set up a simple new mail server; when I send a test email to the server the email is getting hung up during delivery (user mapping is found) and the email is never found in /home/user/Maildir/new Here is my maillog after a fresh reboot and test email, there are a few warnings I am unfamiliar with. Can you please point me in the right direction? Oct 25 14:54:57 loki dovecot: master: Dovecot v2.0.9 starting up (core dumps disabled) Oct 25 14:54:58 loki postfix/postfix-script[1369]: starting the Postfix mail system Oct 25 14:54:58 loki postfix/master[1370]: daemon started -- version 2.6.6, configuration /etc/postfix Oct 25 14:56:00 loki postfix/tlsmgr[1457]: warning: request to update table btree:/etc/postfix/smtpd_scache in non-postfix directory /etc/postfix Oct 25 14:56:00 loki postfix/tlsmgr[1457]: warning: redirecting the request to postfix-owned data_directory /var/lib/postfix Oct 25 14:56:00 loki postfix/smtpd[1455]: connect from mail-ob0-f180.google.com[209.85.214.180] Oct 25 14:56:01 loki postfix/smtpd[1455]: 1CF5E20A8B: client=mail-ob0-f180.google.com[209.85.214.180] Oct 25 14:56:01 loki postfix/cleanup[1461]: 1CF5E20A8B: message-id= Oct 25 14:56:01 loki postfix/qmgr[1379]: 1CF5E20A8B: from=, size=1788, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Oct 25 14:56:01 loki postfix/qmgr[1379]: warning: connect to transport private/scan: No such file or directory Oct 25 14:56:01 loki postfix/error[1462]: 1CF5E20A8B: to=, orig_to=, relay=none, delay=0.18, delays=0.15/0.02/0/0.01, dsn=4.3.0, status=deferred (mail transport unavailable) Oct 25 14:56:01 loki postfix/smtpd[1455]: disconnect from mail-ob0-f180.google.com[209.85.214.180] master.cf snippets: # ========================================================================== # service type private unpriv chroot wakeup maxproc command + args # (yes) (yes) (yes) (never) (100) # ========================================================================== smtp inet n - n - - smtpd submission inet n - n - - smtpd -o smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt # -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes # -o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject # -o milter_macro_daemon_name=ORIGINATING smtps inet n - n - - smtpd -o smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes # -o smtpd_sasl_auth_enable=yes # -o smtpd_client_restrictions=permit_sasl_authenticated,reject # -o milter_macro_daemon_name=ORIGINATING scan unix - - n - 16 smtp -o smtp_data_done_timeout=1200 -o smtp_send_xforward_command=yes -o disable_dns_lookups=yes 127.0.0.1:10026 inet n - n - 16 smtpd -o content_filter= -o local_recipient_maps= -o relay_recipient_maps= -o smtpd_restriction_classes= -o smtpd_client_restrictions= -o smtpd_helo_restrictions= -o smtpd_sender_restrictions= -o smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,reject -o mynetworks_style=host -o smtpd_authorized_xforward_hosts=127.0.0.0/8

    Read the article

  • Samba server NETBIOS name not resolving, WINS support not working

    - by Eric
    When I try to connect to my CentOS 6.2 x86_64 server's samba shares using address \\REPO (NETBIOS name of REPO), it times out and shows an error; if I do so directly via IP, it works fine. Furthermore, my server does not work correctly as a WINS server despite my samba settings being correct for it (see below for details). If I stop the iptables service, things work properly. I'm using this page as a reference for which ports to use: http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/server_security.html Specifically: UDP/137 - used by nmbd UDP/138 - used by nmbd TCP/139 - used by smbd TCP/445 - used by smbd I really really really want to keep the secure iptables design I have below but just fix this particular problem. SMB.CONF [global] netbios name = REPO workgroup = AWESOME security = user encrypt passwords = yes # Use the native linux password database #passdb backend = tdbsam # Be a WINS server wins support = yes # Make this server a master browser local master = yes preferred master = yes os level = 65 # Disable print support load printers = no printing = bsd printcap name = /dev/null disable spoolss = yes # Restrict who can access the shares hosts allow = 127.0.0. 10.1.1. [public] path = /mnt/repo/public create mode = 0640 directory mode = 0750 writable = yes valid users = mangs repoman IPTABLES CONFIGURE SCRIPT # Remove all existing rules iptables -F # Set default chain policies iptables -P INPUT DROP iptables -P FORWARD DROP iptables -P OUTPUT DROP # Allow incoming SSH iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22222 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 22222 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow incoming HTTP #iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT #iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 80 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow incoming Samba iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p udp --dport 137 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p udp --sport 137 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p udp --dport 138 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p udp --sport 138 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 139 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 139 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 445 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 445 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Make these rules permanent service iptables save service iptables restart**strong text**

    Read the article

  • Password Cracking Windows Accounts

    - by Kevin
    At work we have laptops with encrypted harddrives. Most developers here (on occasion I have been guilty of it too) leave their laptops in hibernate mode when they take them home at night. Obviously, Windows (i.e. there is a program running in the background which does it for windows) must have a method to unencrypt the data on the drive, or it wouldn't be able to access it. That being said, I always thought that leaving a windows machine on in hibernate mode in a non-secure place (not at work on a lock) is a security threat, because someone could take the machine, leave it running, hack the windows accounts and use it to encrypt the data and steal the information. When I got to thinking about how I would go about breaking into the windows system without restarting it, I couldn't figure out if it was possible. I know it is possible to write a program to crack windows passwords once you have access to the appropriate file(s). But is it possible to execute a program from a locked Windows system that would do this? I don't know of a way to do it, but I am not a Windows expert. If so, is there a way to prevent it? I don't want to expose security vulnerabilities about how to do it, so I would ask that someone wouldn't post the necessary steps in details, but if someone could say something like "Yes, it's possible the USB drive allows arbitrary execution," that would be great! EDIT: The idea being with the encryption is that you can't reboot the system, because once you do, the disk encryption on the system requires a login before being able to start windows. With the machine being in hibernate, the system owner has already bypassed the encryption for the attacker, leaving windows as the only line of defense to protect the data.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10: Filesystem check or mount failed [migrated]

    - by SamHuckaby
    I attempted to upgrade from Ubuntu 13.04 to 13.10 today, and mid upgrade the system started flaking out, and eventually locked up entirely. I was forced to restart the computer, and am now unable to get the computer to boot up at all. When I boot currently, it takes me to the GRUB menu, and I can choose to boot normally, or boot in an older version. I have tried several things, which I list below, but no matter what, when I try to finish booting into Ubuntu, I receive the following error: Filesystem check or mount failed. A maintenance shell will now be started. CONTROL-D will terminate this shell and continue booting after re-trying filesystems. Any further errors will be ignored root@ubuntu-computername:~# I have fun fsck -f and everything appears correct, no errors are reported. and it passes all 5 checks. If I run fdisk -l then I get the following information: Disk /dev/sda: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00010824 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 608456703 304227328 83 Linux /dev/sda2 608458750 625141759 8341505 5 Extended Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary. /dev/sda5 608458752 625141759 8341504 82 Linux swap / Solaris Disk /dev/sdb: 320.1 GB, 320072933376 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders, total 625142448 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0fb4b7e8 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sdb1 8192 625139711 312565760 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT I am considering just installing a new OS on the other disk, that currently has nothing on it, and then just attempting to scrape my data off the old disk (thankfully I didn't encrypt the files). Really my question is this: Can I salvage this Ubuntu install, or should I give up and just reinstall?

    Read the article

  • gpg symmetric encryption using pipes

    - by Thomas
    I'm trying to generate keys to lock my drive (using DM-Crypt with LUKS) by pulling data from /dev/random and then encrypting that using GPG. In the guide I'm using, it suggests using the following command: dd if=/dev/random count=1 | gpg --symmetric -a >./[drive]_key.gpg If you do it without a pipe, and feed it a file, it will pop up an (n?)curses prompt for you to type in a password. However when I pipe in the data, it repeats the following message four times and sits there frozen: pinentry-curses: no LC_CTYPE known assuming UTF-8 It also says can't connect to '/root/.gnupg/S.gpg-agent': File or directory doesn't exist, however I am assuming that this doesn't have anything to do with it, since it shows up even when the input is from a file. So I guess my question boils down to this: is there a way to force gpg to accept the passphrase from the command line, or in some other way get this to work, or will I have to write the data from /dev/random to a temporary file, and then encrypt that file? (Which as far as I know should be alright due to the fact that I'm doing this on the LiveCD and haven't yet created the swap, so there should be no way for it to be written to disk.)

    Read the article

  • Securing bash scripts

    - by minnur
    Hi There, Does anybody know what is the best way to secure bash scripts. I have a script which creates database and source code backup and ftp it to other server. And login/password for destination ftp are plain text. I need somehow encrypt it or hide it in case of website hacking. Or should i create script written on C to create bash file then run it and delete ? Thanks. Thanks for the answers and I am sorry, i wasn't clear enough. I would like to clarify my question in the following items. We are storing the data in Rackspace Cloud files. We can't pull as Cloud files doesn't allow you run a script. We can write the script to run on Server A and pull FTP and MySQL data on servers B, C, D, etc. And we want to protect the passwords on A from the situation where A is hacked. Can we compile our script file to hide them? Thanks

    Read the article

  • smbclient timing out

    - by Sam Lee
    I am trying to set up a Samba share on a Centos machine. I want to connect to this server using smbclient on OS X. Here is what happens: > smbclient -L X.X.X.X timeout connecting to X.X.X.X:445 timeout connecting to X.X.X.X:139 Error connecting to X.X.X.X (Operation already in progress) Connection to X.X.X.X failed What could be going wrong? Here is my iptables dump on the Centos machine (the server): > iptables -L -n Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 127.0.0.0/8 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:445 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:3000 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:443 ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:22 ACCEPT icmp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 icmp type 8 REJECT all -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:3000 And finally, my smb.conf: [global] workgroup = workgroup security = SHARE load printers = No default service = global path = /home available = No encrypt passwords = yes [share] writeable = yes admin users = myusername path = /home/myhome/ force user = root valid users = myusername public = yes available = yes

    Read the article

  • publickey authentication only works with existing ssh session

    - by aaron
    publickey authentication only works for me if I've already got one ssh session open. I am trying to log into a host running Ubuntu 10.10 desktop with publickey authentication, and it fails when I first log in: [me@my-laptop:~]$ ssh -vv host ... debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: /Users/me/.ssh/id_rsa ... debug2: we did not send a packet, disable method debug1: Next authentication method: password me@hosts's password: And the /var/log/auth.log output: Jan 16 09:57:11 host sshd[1957]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for cpe-70-114-155-20.austin.res.rr.com [70.114.155.20] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! Jan 16 09:57:13 host sshd[1957]: pam_sm_authenticate: Called Jan 16 09:57:13 host sshd[1957]: pam_sm_authenticate: username = [astacy] Jan 16 09:57:13 host sshd[1959]: Passphrase file wrapped Jan 16 09:57:15 host sshd[1959]: Error attempting to add filename encryption key to user session keyring; rc = [1] Jan 16 09:57:15 host sshd[1957]: Accepted password for astacy from 70.114.155.20 port 42481 ssh2 Jan 16 09:57:15 host sshd[1957]: pam_unix(sshd:session): session opened for user astacy by (uid=0) Jan 16 09:57:20 host sudo: astacy : TTY=pts/0 ; PWD=/home/astacy ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/usr/bin/tail -f /var/log/auth.log The strange thing is that once I've got this first login session, I run the exact same ssh command, and publickey authentication works: [me@my-laptop:~]$ ssh -vv host ... debug1: Server accepts key: pkalg ssh-rsa blen 277 ... [me@host:~]$ And the /var/log/auth.log output is: Jan 16 09:59:11 host sshd[2061]: reverse mapping checking getaddrinfo for cpe-70-114-155-20.austin.res.rr.com [70.114.155.20] failed - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! Jan 16 09:59:11 host sshd[2061]: Accepted publickey for astacy from 70.114.155.20 port 39982 ssh2 Jan 16 09:59:11 host sshd[2061]: pam_unix(sshd:session): session opened for user astacy by (uid=0) What do I need to do to make publickey authentication work on the first login? NOTE: When I installed Ubuntu 10.10, I checked the 'encrypt home folder' option. I'm wondering if this has something to do with the log message "Error attempting to add filename encryption key to user session keyring"

    Read the article

  • Mac OS X Disk Encryption - Automation

    - by jfm429
    I want to setup a Mac Mini server with an external drive that is encrypted. In Finder, I can use the full-disk encryption option. However, for multiple users, this could become tricky. What I want to do is encrypt the external volume, then set things up so that when the machine boots, the disk is unlocked so that all users can access it. Of course permissions need to be maintained, but that goes without saying. What I'm thinking of doing is setting up a root-level launchd script that runs once on boot and unlocks the disk. The encryption keys would probably be stored in root's keychain. So here's my list of concerns: If I store the encryption keys in the system keychain, then the file in /private/var/db/SystemKey could be used to unlock the keychain if an attacker ever gained physical access to the server. this is bad. If I store the encryption keys in my user keychain, I have to manually run the command with my password. This is undesirable. If I run a launchd script with my user credentials, it will run under my user account but won't have access to the keychain, defeating the purpose. If root has a keychain (does it?) then how would it be decrypted? Would it remain locked until the password was entered (like the user keychain) or would it have the same problem as the system keychain, with keys stored on the drive and accessible with physical access? Assuming all of the above works, I've found diskutil coreStorage unlockVolume which seems to be the appropriate command, but the details of where to store the encryption key is the biggest problem. If the system keychain is not secure enough, and user keychains require a password, what's the best option?

    Read the article

  • Client certificate based encryption

    - by Timo Willemsen
    I have a question about security of a file on a webserver. I have a file on my webserver which is used by my webapplication. It's a bitcoin wallet. Essentially it's a file with a private key in it used to decrypt messages. Now, my webapplication uses the file, because it's used to recieve transactions made trough the bitcoin network. I was looking into ways to secure it. Obviously if someone has root access to the server, he can do the same as my application. However, I need to find a way to encrypt it. I was thinking of something like this, but I have no clue if this is actually going to work: Client logs in with some sort of client certificate. Webapplication creates a wallet file. Webapplication encrypts file with client certificate. If the application wants to access the file, it has to use the client certificate. So basically, if someone gets root access to the site, they cannot access the wallet. Is this possible and does anyone know about an implementation of this? Are there any problems with this? And how safe would this be?

    Read the article

  • Windows EFS file sharing anomaly

    - by wbkang
    Fyi, I can confirm this happening in Windows Vista (Business) and Windows 7 Professional in WORKGROUP mode (as both a client and a server). I am not totally sure if this is a Superuser question or a ServerFault question. So there are two PCs, let's call them C (client) and S (server). Both servers have a user called U with the same password. Both C and S has the same private/public key pair for EFS. S shares a folder F with U given full permission. Also locally, the user U has the full permission on F. Now, U, from C, connects to F at the server S, everything works totally fine. I can read,write, delete files and create/delete folders in S. Things go weird from here. I encrypt the folder F in S. I can delete/modify files fine (so the files in F decrypted OK). However, U from C, cannot create a folder, or create a file getting Access Denied. But this Access Denied is very special. It takes over 10 seconds at C to receive the error and the explorer freezes while trying to create a folder, eventually returning error. In S, I can watch the folder created at the same time, and what I see is "New Folder" blinking like crazy and eventually disappearing when the client receives the error. i.e. it's created and deleted in a really rapid manner. What I do not understand is that permissions look fine, I can modify/delete files, and it looks like there is no problem with EFS because I can read/write files fine. Yet it fails to create a file or a folder. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, wbkang

    Read the article

  • Problems with "Read Only" on a Samba share from Windows machines

    - by fistameeny
    Hi, We have a Ubuntu 10.04 Server that has a bunch of Samba shares on it that Windows workstations connect to. Each Windows workstation has a valid username/password to access the shares, which have restricted access governed by Samba. The problem we are experiencing is that Samba doesn't seem to be able to mimic the Windows way of handling "Read Only" attributes. Say I have two users, UserA and UserB, both a group called Staff - UserA creates a file that is readable/writeable by the group (ie. chmod rwxrwx---). If UserA then sets the "Read Only" flag, this changes the permissions to r-xr-x--- (i.e. no write for anyone). As UserB is in the same group as UserA, they should be able to remove the "Read Only" permission - however, they can't as Samba won't allow it. Is there a way to force Samba to allow users within the same group to remove the "Read Only" from a file not created by them? Edit: The Samba smb.conf is as follows: The share is defined in the smb.conf as: [global] log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m passwd chat = *Enter\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* . obey pam restrictions = yes map to guest = bad user encrypt passwords = true passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passdb backend = tdbsam dns proxy = no netbios name = ubsrv server string = ubsrv unix password sync = yes os level = 20 syslog = 0 usershare allow guests = yes panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d max log size = 1000 pam password change = yes workgroup = workgroup [Projects] valid users = @Staff writeable = yes user = @Staff create mode = 0777 path = /srv/samba/Projects directory mode = 0777 store dos attributes = Yes The folder itself looks like this: ls -l /srv/samba/ drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody Staff 4096 2010-11-04 10:09 Projects Thanks in advance, Matt

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >