Search Results

Search found 1275 results on 51 pages for 'piracy protection'.

Page 5/51 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Standard Protection:Prevent IRC communication

    - by awe
    I have McAffee virusscan on my work computer, and every time I start up, I get 2 log entries like this: Blocked by port blocking rule C:\Program Files\Skype\Phone\Skype.exe Anti-virus Standard Protection:Prevent IRC communication The difference between the two, is that at the end there are 2 different IP addresses (which I don't recognise as belongs to us) with port :6667 on one and :6669 on the other. Although this is logged, Skype seems to work as expected; including talking, chatting and screen sharing (new feature in Skype 4.1). Anyone knows anything about what this is? EDIT: I also have a Skype certified plugin in Skype called Cucku Backup. I did not find anything in the documentation that Cucku is trying to access these ports through Skype, but it could be...? EDIT2: I did a search on the IP addresses in question on www.webyield.net, and resulted in the following: IP 71.251.72.173 (this one used port :6667): Host name: pool-71-251-72-173.tampfl.fios.verizon.net IP 79.87.54.165 (this one used port :6669): Host name: 165.54.87-79.rev.gaoland.net

    Read the article

  • SD cards and CPRM protection

    - by Francesco Turco
    Before buying an SD memory card, I'd like to know something more about the CPRM protection, in particular: Does CPRM influence the way I am supposed to access my own data? That is, does CPRM encrypt it? Could CPRM prevent me from accessing my own data? Is it possible to disable or eliminate CPRM from either the memory card or the card reader? Are there manufacturers selling CPRM-free SD memory cards? Is there any real alternative to CPRM-protected SD memory cards beside USB flash drives? Is Linux support for SD cards good? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Memory Pressure Protection Feature for TCP Stack - Provided by Microsoft Security Update KB967723

    - by Angry_IT_Guru
    We've been having a lot of funky issues with some of our web based applications that allow clients to submit lot of image files to our servers. Lots of ports are used in the process. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-048.mspx - released in Sept-2009. support.microsoft.com/kb/974288 - Memory Pressure Protection description. Evidently, after applying KB967723, our clients receive funky error messages as if connections cannot be made to the server or connections have been closed. There doesn't appear to be a pattern and sometimes it works and other times is doesn't. Typically we've noticed it when server is under load. I'm curious what others think about this MPP and any issues that you may have experienced from it. I understand its purpose, but I think it may have broken a lot of apps in the process. It doesn't look like Microsoft made this "feature" public to everyone.

    Read the article

  • How to remove password protection from compressed files

    - by Mehper C. Palavuzlar
    This has always been a problem for me for a long time. Let's see if any SuperUser can solve this: I have a directory in which there are lots of password protected .RAR files of which I know the passwords. I want to remove the password protection from all of them without extracting the contents. Since each file is larger than 1 GB, decompressing & then recompressing without password encryption is not a good option for me. How can I easily do that? I'm using WinRAR 3.80 on Win7. Any other 3rd party tools are welcomed.

    Read the article

  • Would Microsoft Security Essentials be adequate protection?

    - by Xavierjazz
    Is Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) adequate protection for my computer? What is the experience with this product? EDIT. On 2009-10-31 I found out about a comparison of AV Suites. MSE did VERY well. EDIT: One that I found interesting was "Raven", who mentioned that AV software has to hook deeply into the OS, and who better to design this than the designer of the OS. EDIT: My personal experience is that I like it, but I also use Malwarebytes and Superantispyware. Each of them sometimes come up with one the others missed or ignored.

    Read the article

  • Windows XP - removing write protection for usb drives

    - by Arnold
    I have a laptop who used to belong to my company and when I plug in a usb memory drive, I cannot write any files to it. This is because company policy did not allow writing to usb drives without a special authorization (to prevent theft of files). However the laptop is now mine, and I was given the administrator password, so I am guessing that as administrator I can remove this protection somehow. How can I do this? Currently if I try to copy a file to the drive, Windows simply tells me that the drive is write-protected, whatever usb drive I plug in. Maybe it is some registry setting? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Error setting up Data Protection Manager 2010 Agents / Network "Unauthenticated" in network settings

    - by Bowsa
    I'm not sure if the two are connected but i suspect they are. Basically I'm tring to setup Data Protection Manager 2010 on a fresh install of Server 2008 R2 in a SBS 2003 domain. Everything went fine until trying to install agents across the network. Upon clicking add, i get the following error message: Unable to connect to the Active Directory Domain Services Database. Make sure that the DPM server is a member of a domain and that the controller is running. Also verify that there is network connectivity between the DPM server and the domain controller. ID: 7 As usual (worryingly) the MSDN support for 2010 products is nearly non existant, clicking the error ID simply gives a page not found error. So after 2 days of Googling and trying various fixes (DNS settings, adding permissions to GPO objects, rejoining the domain and many more) I thought I'd ask here in the hope that someone out there may have had this issue before. Any help greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Setup Apache Password Protection

    - by Jiew Meng
    I have some difficulties setting up password protection in Apache In .htaccess, I have AuthUserFile /var/www/vhosts/domain.net/httpdocs/.htpasswd AuthGroupFile /dev/null AuthName "Test Server" AuthType Basic require user testuser Then in .htpasswd, I have something like testuser:encrypted password The problem now is I forgot what .htpasswd generator I used. When I try to add a new user and password, it doesn't work. eg. when I put require user newuser it fails always (prompt keeps reappearing). Then when I revert to testuser it works How can I setup such that I have 1 or some "admins" that can access everything and viewers that can view only specific folders ... eg / - only admins /folder1 - only admins or folder1's users /folder2 - only admins or folder2's users Also what do I do to not allow showing of directory listing

    Read the article

  • HAProxy overload protection

    - by user2050516
    using the HAProxy, would it be possible to configure an overload protection, to limit the amount of requests sent to the backing http server(s) to a given rate (z.B 100 Request per second ). If the threshold is exceeded requests should be answered with a default response. I am interested in requests per second not connections per second as a connection can have many requests. And yes to improve the servers is not an option here. If yes a configuration example to achieve that would be excellent. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Le W3C publie la proposition du standard "Do Not Track", et pose les fondements de la protection anti-traçage publicitaire

    Le W3C publie la proposition du standard "Do Not Track" Et pose dans deux brouillons les fondements de la protection anti-traçage publicitaire Mise à jour du 15 novembre 2011 par Idelways Les premiers objectifs sont atteints par le groupe de travail « Tracking Protection » du W3C, dédié à la standardisation d'une solution de protection antitraçage publicitaire. Créé à l'initiative « Do Not Track » de Microsoft et Mozilla, le groupe du consortium mondial vient de publier deux brouillons de spécifications que les éditeurs de navigateurs et créateurs de sites devront implémenter à terme pour rendre l'utili...

    Read the article

  • Overload Protection

    - by Tyron
    Is there a simple way how I could redirect a visitor (via .htaccess or PHP script) to a static page when the server is overloaded from too many requests? It doesn't have to be a protection against huge amounts of requests at once or protect against DoS Attacks. I think our server would be protected enough if we could prevent the standard website to be shown and instead show a single file "overloaded.html". Also how could I get a measure for a server being overloaded on a typical managed server (= non root access to a Linux server) environment?

    Read the article

  • DPM - Monitoring is green, Protection has error and Latest rec point is old. How do I interpret that?

    - by LosManos
    How do I read the DPM info in this case? Monitoring says Failed but Protection shows Ok while having a Latest recovery point from last year. Under Monitoring tab I have Failed for Source | Computer | Protection group | Start time Computer\System Protection | MyServerName | Recovery point | 2014-06-09 19:00:00 which shows me that something happened last night. But under Protection tab everything is green. Here I have Protection group member | | Protection status Protection group ..name.. Computer: MyServerName Computer\System protection Bare metal recovery OK ... Latest recovery point: 2013-12-12 06:32:54 My guess is that backup failed last night once, but succeeded later. It then found out that there hasn't been any change since sometime last year and leave it be and flags Ok.

    Read the article

  • Should I upgrade to Symantec Endpoint Protection? [closed]

    - by Alex C.
    I'm the IT manager at an animal shelter in Upstate New York. We have a Windows network with about 50 desktops running Windows XP Pro. We used to use CA eTrust Antivirus, but that product didn't work too well (too many infections got through). About six months ago, we switched to using Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition ver. 10.1.8.8000. If anything, the Symantec product is even worse. The last six weeks in particular have been very bad -- we've had about seven or eight PCs get hit with those malware infections that masquerade as antivirus software. In most of those cases, Symantec didn't even flag the malware at all. So... what gives with the Symantec Antivirus? As far as I can tell, it's installed correctly and downloading updated definitions nightly. I can upgrade to Symantec Endpoint Protection for $220 (we get non-profit pricing), but I don't want to do it if it's not going to be significantly better. Any advice? Should I switch to something else entirely? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Disable write-protection on Micro SD

    - by Tim
    My task today is to open up and copy some files to 700 brand new micro SD cards. As I get going on this task I am finding that some of the Micro SD cards are telling me "sorry this drive is write protected" To copy the files I am using a standard SD to micro SD card adapter, and a USB SD card reader / writer. I have ensured that the switch is set to OFF on all of my adapters. As soon as I get a Micro SD that tells me it is write protected I can use the same adapter with another micro SD and it works fine, so I know the problem is not with my adapters. My question is: How can I disable the write protection on a Micro SD card? This eHow article seems to indicate that there is also a physical switch on Micro SD cards. However I have personally never seen a Micro SD with a physical switch, and none of the ones I am using today have said switch. Since these cards are brand new and thus empty are the ones that are telling me they are write protected simply useless? Could this be caused by some sort of defect in the cards?

    Read the article

  • Should I upgrade to Symantec Endpoint Protection?

    - by Alex C.
    I'm the IT manager at an animal shelter in Upstate New York. We have a Windows network with about 50 desktops running Windows XP Pro. We used to use CA eTrust Antivirus, but that product didn't work too well (too many infections got through). About six months ago, we switched to using Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition ver. 10.1.8.8000. If anything, the Symantec product is even worse. The last six weeks in particular have been very bad -- we've had about seven or eight PCs get hit with those malware infections that masquerade as antivirus software. In most of those cases, Symantec didn't even flag the malware at all. So... what gives with the Symantec Antivirus? As far as I can tell, it's installed correctly and downloading updated definitions nightly. I can upgrade to Symantec Endpoint Protection for $220 (we get non-profit pricing), but I don't want to do it if it's not going to be significantly better. Any advice? Should I switch to something else entirely? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Anti-virus protection question?

    - by DaBaer
    About 4 years ago, I found Kaspersky and have been using the most current version since. Most people try and argue the use of AVG or Avast to me, and there are some very solid reasons I do not go that route. Over the years, I have found Kasp to become bulkier and bulkier, and have had issues setting it up for friends/family/clients. I am just curios on possible recommendations from other users, with my criteria in mind: What I like about Kasp in the past: The license sold in stores in a 3 pack, is considered a commercial license, and emails from Kasp in response to my questions, make it clear that I can do with the 3 licenses that I want, providing I do not use more than 3 installs per Key. So, allowed me to buy 3, 5, and 7 packs, and resell to users at a cheaper cost than what they would pay if they bought their own license. The ability to easily obtain a currently updated .exe for installation on multiple peoples machines. Power of the scan. Kasp has been a good solution for me (even when using a trial license) on cleaning up machines that were badly infected (in which AVG and AVAST were unable to.) Speed of install/update. After a cleanup of malwarebytes, spybot, mcafee stinger, ccleaner, and combofix, I used to be able to get Kasp Int Security installed and updated in around 5 minutes. The issues that I have with the free AV, is strength of protection. In my opinion for someone who is a 'power use' these are good alternatives, because such a user should be trained or knowledgeable enough to be careful and not get themselves in trouble. Most of the users I assist, are too PC ignorant to know any better, and go hogwild on the web. It has been my experience that the number of people coming back to me with spyware/malware/virus issues since I have converted from AVG to Kasp has been cut down to around 20% of what it used to be 4 or 5 years ago. In a perfect world, I could install and use Kasp Internet Security 2008, and be very happy. But this is not the case anymore. So after this long description of what I used, and have used, does anyone have any good recommendations on AV that isn't going to cost me too much per install?

    Read the article

  • Is Rails default CSRF protection insecure

    - by schickb
    By default the form post CSRF protection in Rails creates an authenticity token for a user that only changes when the user's session changes. One of our customers did a security audit of our site and flagged that as an issue. The auditor's statement was that if we also had a XSS vulnerability that an attacker could grab another user's authenticity token and make use of it for CSRF attacks until the user's session expired. But is seems to me that if we had an XSS vulnerability like that an attacker could just as easily grab another user's session cookie and login as that user directly. Or even just make call to our REST Api as the user being attacked. No secondary CSRF attack needed. Have I missed something? Is there a real problem with the default CSRF protection in Rails?

    Read the article

  • Oracle Data Protection: How Do You Measure Up? - Part 1

    - by tichien
    This is the first installment in a blog series, which examines the results of a recent database protection survey conducted by Database Trends and Applications (DBTA) Magazine. All Oracle IT professionals know that a sound, well-tested backup and recovery strategy plays a foundational role in protecting their Oracle database investments, which in many cases, represent the lifeblood of business operations. But just how common are the data protection strategies used and the challenges faced across various enterprises? In January 2014, Database Trends and Applications Magazine (DBTA), in partnership with Oracle, released the results of its “Oracle Database Management and Data Protection Survey”. Two hundred Oracle IT professionals were interviewed on various aspects of their database backup and recovery strategies, in order to identify the top organizational and operational challenges for protecting Oracle assets. Here are some of the key findings from the survey: The majority of respondents manage backups for tens to hundreds of databases, representing total data volume of 5 to 50TB (14% manage 50 to 200 TB and some up to 5 PB or more). About half of the respondents (48%) use HA technologies such as RAC, Data Guard, or storage mirroring, however these technologies are deployed on only 25% of their databases (or less). This indicates that backups are still the predominant method for database protection among enterprises. Weekly full and daily incremental backups to disk were the most popular strategy, used by 27% of respondents, followed by daily full backups, which are used by 17%. Interestingly, over half of the respondents reported that 10% or less of their databases undergo regular backup testing.  A few key backup and recovery challenges resonated across many of the respondents: Poor performance and impact on productivity (see Figure 1) 38% of respondents indicated that backups are too slow, resulting in prolonged backup windows. In a similar vein, 23% complained that backups degrade the performance of production systems. Lack of continuous protection (see Figure 2) 35% revealed that less than 5% of Oracle data is protected in real-time.  Management complexity 25% stated that recovery operations are too complex. (see Figure 1)  31% reported that backups need constant management. (see Figure 1) 45% changed their backup tools as a result of growing data volumes, while 29% changed tools due to the complexity of the tools themselves. Figure 1: Current Challenges with Database Backup and Recovery Figure 2: Percentage of Organization’s Data Backed Up in Real-Time or Near Real-Time In future blogs, we will discuss each of these challenges in more detail and bring insight into how the backup technology industry has attempted to resolve them.

    Read the article

  • Best Practice for captcha based protection against D.O.S to Nginx Proxy

    - by user325320
    The idea is explained here In simple words, Nginx Proxy plays the role of load balance and transmits the HTTP/HTTPS requests to servers. If the number of request times within a certain period from an individual IP exceeds a threshold, it will trigger a captcha for the upcoming requests. And the end-user must input the correct captcha code before he can continue to access the site. Do you know any open source / free NGINX module for this usage? I searched on the Internet and here is one of them: https://github.com/snbuback/nginx seems it needs modification. Any suggestion / experience is welcome, thank you

    Read the article

  • Trying to use Digest Authentication for Folder Protection

    - by Jon Hazlett
    StackOverflow users suggested I try my question here. I'm using Server 2008 EE and IIS 7. I've got a site that I've migrated over from XP Pro using IIS 5. On the old system, I was using IIS Password to use simple .htaccess files to control a couple of folders that I didn't want to be publicly viewable. Now that I'm running a full-blown DC with a more powerful version of IIS, I decided it'd be a good idea to start using something slightly more sophisticated. After doing my research and trying to keep things as cheap as possible with a touch of extra security, I decided that Digest Authentication would be the best way to go. My issue is this: With Anon access disabled and Digest enabled, I am never prompted for credentials. when on the server, viewing domain[dot]com/example will simply show my 401.htm page without prompting me for credentials. when on a different network/computer, viewing domain[dot]com/example again shows my 401.htm without prompting for credentials. At the site level I only have Anon enabled. Every subfolder, unless I want it protected, has just Anon enabled. Only the folders I want protected have Anon disabled and Digest enabled. I have tried editing the bindings to see if that would spark any kind of change... www.domain.com, domain.com, and localhost have all been tried. There was never a change in behavior at any permutation (aside from the page not being found when I un-bound localhost to the site). I might have screwed up when I deleted the default site from IIS. I didn't think I'd actually need it for anything, but some of what I have read online is telling me otherwise now. As for Digest settings, I have it pointed to local.domain.com, which is the name assigned to my AD Domain. I'm guessing that's right, but honestly have no clue about what a realm actually is. Would it matter that I have an A record for local.domain.com pointing to my IP address? I had problems initially with an absolute link for 401.htm pages, but have since resolved that. Instead of D:\HTTP\401.htm I've used /401.htm and all is well. I used to get error 500's because it couldn't find the custom 401.htm file, but now it loads just fine. As for some data, I was getting entries like this from access logs: 2009-07-10 17:34:12 10.0.0.10 GET /example/ - 80 - [workip] Mozilla/4.0+(compatible;+MSIE+7.0;+Windows+NT+5.1;+.NET+CLR+1.1.4322;+.NET+CLR+2.0.50727;+InfoPath.2) 401 2 5 132 But after correcting my 401.htm links now get logs like this: 2009-07-10 18:56:25 10.0.0.10 GET /example - 80 - [workip] Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+5.1;+en-US;+rv:1.9.0.11)+Gecko/2009060215+Firefox/3.0.11 200 0 0 146 I don't know if that means anything or not. I still don't get any credential challenges, regardless of where I try to sign in from ( my workstation, my server, my cellphone even ). The only thing that's seemed to work is viewing localhost and I donno what could be preventing authentication from finding it's way out of the server. Thanks for any help! Jon

    Read the article

  • htaccess password protection error

    - by nute
    I have an HTACCESS as follows: AuthUserFile /home/nasht00/.htmydomain AuthName "EnterPassword" AuthType Basic Require valid-user When I try it, the password pop-up appears. Whatever I enter in it, I get a 500 Internal Server Error. My password file is under /home/nasht00/.htmydomain . Its owner is nasht00:www-data (nasht00 is my user, www-data is the group that apache2 belongs to). File permissions on that file is 775. What am I missing? If I try without the htaccess it works fine of course. I have Ubuntu 9.10 with apache2.

    Read the article

  • pfSense + DDoS Protection

    - by Jeremy
    I run a gaming community on a colo with a 100Mbps port. I want to buy a very cheap 35 dollar server with the same 100Mbps port, and run pfSense to use as a hardware firewall. I'm dealing with a bunch of 14 year old kids that have access to botnets, so it can become a bit necessary to get something like this. My overall question, is using pfSense on a cheap identical datacenter/port speed server worth it to actually block DDoS attacks? A bit more into detail since I assume you will ask this, the attacks we receive are normally around 1Gbps. We currently run CentOS using CSF Firewall, and even when using a software firewall, we block 500Mbps UDP floods, or just generic attacks pretty easily. Thanks, - Necro

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >