Search Results

Search found 25324 results on 1013 pages for 'folder security'.

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 50/1013 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • Why does RoboCopy create a hidden system folder?

    - by Svish
    I thought I would try out RoboCopy for mirroring the contents of a folder to another harddrive. And seems like it worked. But, for some reason, to see the destination folder I have to both enable Show hidden files, folders and drives and disable Hide protected operating system files. Why is this? Both the source and destination folder was initially both visible and normal directories. When I open up the properties for that destination folder, the Hidden attribute is even disabled. What is going on here? Is it because I ran it in an administrator command prompt? Or is it an issue with my choice of modifiers? Or does robocopy really just work this way? robocopy E: I:\E /COPYALL /E /R:0 /MIR /B /ETA Update: Tried to copy another drive to another folder, and I got the same thing happening there. But when I try to just copy a folder to a different folder, then the destination folder stays normal. Could it be because I copy a drive? If so, how can I prevent this from happening? Cause I really do want to copy the whole drive...

    Read the article

  • Can I lose files when changing security on an XP drive within Windows 7?

    - by Will
    Hard to come up with a title for this one, sheesh. Have a friend whose computer went down. He asked me to get all his data off his drive. His old computer was running XP. So, I've plugged it into my Windows 7 computer. When I attempt to open up his Documents and Settings folder, I get prompted to elevate in order to "permanently get access to this folder." If I do this, will I be able to access the files in this directory, or will all the current files be lost? I may be overly paranoid about this, but I can't find any information about exactly what will happen when I do this. TIA.

    Read the article

  • Changing the View of a Folder When It Is Opened from Finder

    - by user60044
    When I was running OS 10.4 I had all my folders beautifully organized with position and which ones should be opened in View mode and which one in Icon, etc. When I transitioned to 10.6 I found that OS ignored all that information and imposes an awful consequence of changing the view for some folder and that view moving up to all parent folders which don't have their views locked. The only way I can think of to get this functionality back is to either write a program that given a root directory will enumerate it setting the views based upon a static template I have. The other way I thought I could accomplish this is by Folder Actions. Aside from the fact that I don't know AppleScript it seems folder actions cannot be inherited. Since I have 1000s of folders involved here, all being inherited from a single root, I could not possibly manually add that action to each of those folders. What I would like to have is a folder action that whenever I open the folder from Finder, then if it contains any JPG, GIF, etc. type image files that it will automatically open that folder with a view of Icon with a reasonable size to support the number of images. If the folder contains only folders, then to open that folder in the list view. Does anyone have anything that could do this for me? Thank You, -- Mark

    Read the article

  • Weird Outlook Behavior; Creating its own file folder

    - by Carol Caref
    Outlook is doing a very strange thing. It has created a folder on its own (which, whenever I completely delete, comes back, with a different name). Mail that goes into this folder will not go to any other folder unless I forward it. If I move the email or create a rule to always move mail from particular senders to the Inbox, it moves for a while, but then goes back into the created folder. The first one was called "junk" but it was in addition to my normal junk email folder. When I forwarded all the messages (some were junk, but most were not) and totally deleted that folder, a new one, called "unwanted" appeared that acted the same way. It seems that once one email goes into this folder, then any email from that person also goes into the folder. I have discussed this with the tech person at work. There is no evidence of virus or any other identifiable reason for this to happen. We have searched the Internet and not found anything like this either.

    Read the article

  • Blackberry Security Wipe

    - by GavinR
    What does a Blackberry "Security Wipe" (Options Security Options Security Wipe "emails, Contacts, etc") do? a) If I have an Enterprise Activation with my employer will a security wipe remove this? b) Will my phone still ring when my number is called or do I have to re-activate with my carrier?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 - "Magic" frequent folder

    - by TheAdamGaskins
    Every week, I export an mp3 file from audacity into a folder with that day's date (e.g. this past sunday I exported the file to a folder named 20130609). Then I close everything and that's it for a while. Then, I come back a few hours later to upload the file to ftp. I usually have some folders open, so to open a new one, I right click on the folder icon on the taskbar... to open a new folder window and browse to this folder I just created, right? Well I look up a little bit and: So I click it and upload the file, and it actually saves me 30 seconds, which is really awesome... but what in the world? It happens every single week without fail. I create the folder inside the audacity export window. The folder stays on the frequent list until I create a new folder the following week. This was definitely not an advertised feature of Windows 7, and it's extremely handy... but it really just seems like magic to me. How does it work?

    Read the article

  • Can't upgrade ubuntu 9.xx to 12.04

    - by andrej spyk
    I can't upgrade old Ubuntu 9.10 to new, if I check for upgrade it says: Could not download all repository indexes *Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/restricted/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/main/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/restricted/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/restricted/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/main/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/universe/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/universe/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/restricted/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/universe/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch http://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/universe/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/multiverse/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/multiverse/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch tp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty/multiverse/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch htp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/main/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/restricted/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-security/multiverse/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/main/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/restricted/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch http://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/universe/source/Sources 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/multiverse/binary-i386/Packages 404 Not Found Failed to fetch ttp://cz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jaunty-updates/multiverse/source/Sources 404 Not Found Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead.* How I can upgrade if I can't burn new CD?

    Read the article

  • Is Windows Server 2008R2 NAP solution for NAC (endpoint security) valuable enough to be worth the hassles?

    - by Warren P
    I'm learning about Windows Server 2008 R2's NAP features. I understand what network access control (NAC) is and what role NAP plays in that, but I would like to know what limitations and problems it has, that people wish they knew before they rolled it out. Secondly, I'd like to know if anyone has had success rolling it out in a mid-size (multi-city corporate network with around 15 servers, 200 desktops) environment with most (99%) Windows XP SP3 and newer Windows clients (Vista, and Win7). Did it work with your anti-virus? (I'm guessing NAP works well with the big name anti-virus products, but we're using Trend micro.). Let's assume that the servers are all Windows Server 2008 R2. Our VPNs are cisco stuff, and have their own NAC features. Has NAP actually benefitted your organization, and was it wise to roll it out, or is it yet another in the long list of things that Windows Server 2008 R2 does, but that if you do move your servers up to it, you're probably not going to want to use. In what particular ways might the built-in NAP solution be the best one, and in what particular ways might no solution at all (the status quo pre-NAP) or a third-party endpoint security or NAC solution be considered a better fit? I found an article where a panel of security experts in 2007 say NAC is maybe "not worth it". Are things better now in 2010 with Win Server 2008 R2?

    Read the article

  • Is encryption really needed for having network security? [closed]

    - by Cawas
    I welcome better key-wording here, both on tags and title. I'm trying to conceive a free, open and secure network environment that would work anywhere, from big enterprises to small home networks of just 1 machine. I think since wireless Access Points are the most, if not only, true weak point of a Local Area Network (let's not consider every other security aspect of having internet) there would be basically two points to consider here: Having an open AP for anyone to use the internet through Leaving the whole LAN also open for guests to be able to easily read (only) files on it, and even a place to drop files on Considering these two aspects, once everything is done properly... What's the most secure option between having that, or having just an encrypted password-protected wifi? Of course "both" would seem "more secure". But it shouldn't actually be anything substantial. I've always had the feeling using any kind of the so called "wireless security" methods is actually a bad design. I'm talking mostly about encrypting and pass-phrasing (which are actually two different concepts), since I won't even consider hiding SSID and mac filtering. I understand it's a natural way of thinking. With cable networking nobody can access the network unless they have access to the physical cable, so you're "secure" in the physical way. In a way, encrypting is for wireless what building walls is for the cables. And giving pass-phrases would be adding a door with a key. So, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • How to disable irritating Office File Validation security alert?

    - by Rabarberski
    I have Microsoft Office 2007 running on Windows 7. Yesterday I updated Office to the latest service pack, i.e. SP3. This morning, when opening an MS Word document (.doc format, and a document I created myself some months ago) I was greeted with a new dialog box saying: Security Alert - Office File Validation WARNING: Office File Validation detected a problem while trying to open this file. Opening this is probably dangerous, and may allow a malicious user to take over your computer. Contact the sender and ask them to re-save and re-send the file. For more security, verify in person or via the phone that they sent the file. Including two links to some microsoft blabla webpage. Obviously the document is safe as I created it myself some months ago. How to disable this irritating dialog box? (On a sidenote, a rethorical question: Will Microsoft never learn? I consider myself a power user in Word, but I have no clue what could be wrong with my document so that it is considered dangerous. Let alone more basic users of Word. Sigh....)

    Read the article

  • SharePoint extranet security concerns, am I right to be worried?

    - by LukeR
    We are currently running MOSS 2007 internally, and have been doing so for about 12 months with no major issues. There has now been a request from management to provide access from the internet for small groups (initially) which are comprised of members from other Community Organisations like ours. Committees and the like. My first reaction was not joy when presented with this request, however I'd like to make sure the apprehension is warranted. I have read a few docs on TechNet about security hardening with regard to SharePoint, but I'm interested to know what others have done. I've spoken with another organisation who has already implemented something similar, and they have essentially port-forwarded from the internet to their internal production MOSS server. I don't really like the sound of this. Is it adviseable/necessary to run a DMZ type configuration, with a separate web front-end on a contained network segment? Does that even offer me any greater security than their setup? Some of the configurations from a TechNet doc aren't really feasible, given our current network budget. I've already made my concerns known to management, but it appears it will go ahead in some form or another. I'm tempted to run a completely isolated, seperate install just for these types of users. Should I even be concerned about it? Any thoughts, comments would be most welcomed at this point.

    Read the article

  • Security implications of adding www-data to /etc/sudoers to run php-cgi as a different user

    - by BMiner
    What I really want to do is allow the 'www-data' user to have the ability to launch php-cgi as another user. I just want to make sure that I fully understand the security implications. The server should support a shared hosting environment where various (possibly untrusted) users have chroot'ed FTP access to the server to store their HTML and PHP files. Then, since PHP scripts can be malicious and read/write others' files, I'd like to ensure that each users' PHP scripts run with the same user permissions for that user (instead of running as www-data). Long story short, I have added the following line to my /etc/sudoers file, and I wanted to run it past the community as a sanity check: www-data ALL = (%www-data) NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/php-cgi This line should only allow www-data to run a command like this (without a password prompt): sudo -u some_user /usr/bin/php-cgi ...where some_user is a user in the group www-data. What are the security implications of this? This should then allow me to modify my Lighttpd configuration like this: fastcgi.server += ( ".php" => (( "bin-path" => "sudo -u some_user /usr/bin/php-cgi", "socket" => "/tmp/php.socket", "max-procs" => 1, "bin-environment" => ( "PHP_FCGI_CHILDREN" => "4", "PHP_FCGI_MAX_REQUESTS" => "10000" ), "bin-copy-environment" => ( "PATH", "SHELL", "USER" ), "broken-scriptfilename" => "enable" )) ) ...allowing me to spawn new FastCGI server instances for each user.

    Read the article

  • Using Plesk for webhosting on Ubuntu - Security risk or reasonably safe?

    - by user66952
    Sorry for this newb-question I'm pretty clueless about Plesk, only have limited debian (without Plesk) experience. If the question is too dumb just telling me how to ask a smarter one or what kind of info I should read first to improve the question would be appreciated as well. I want to offer a program for download on my website hosted on an Ubuntu 8.04.4 VPS using Plesk 9.3.0 for web-hosting. I have limited the ssh-access to the server via key only. When setting up the webhosting with Plesk it created an FTP-login & user is that a potential security risk that could bypass the key-only access? I think Plesk itself (even without the ftp-user-account) through it's web-interface could be a risk is that correct or are my concerns exaggerated? Would you say this solution makes a difference if I'm just using it for the next two weeks and then change servers to a system where I know more about security. 3.In other words is one less likely to get hacked within the first two weeks of having a new site up and running than in week 14&15? (due to occurring in less search results in the beginning perhaps, or for whatever reason... )

    Read the article

  • Folder.Bind - "Id is malformed" - Exchange Web Services Managed API

    - by Michael Shimmins
    I'm passing the Folder.Id.UniqueId property of a folder retrieved from a FindFolders query via the query string to another page. On this second page I want to use that UniqueId to bind to the folder to list its mail items: string parentFolderId = Request.QueryString["id"]; ... Folder parentFolder = Folder.Bind(exchangeService, parentFolderId); // do something with parent folder When I run this code it throws an exception telling me the Id is manlformed. I thought maybe it needs to be wrapped in a FolderId object: Folder parentFolder = Folder.Bind(exchangeService, new FolderId(parentFolderId)); Same issue. I've been searching for a while, and have found some suggestions about Base64/UTF8 conversion, but again that did not solve the problem. Anyone know how to bind to a folder with a given unique id?

    Read the article

  • How to share a folder using the Ubuntu One Web API

    - by Mario César
    I have successfully implement OAuth Authorization with Ubuntu One in Django, Here are my views and models: https://gist.github.com/mariocesar/7102729 Right now, I can use the file_storage ubuntu api, for example the following, will ask if Path exists, then create the directory, and then get the information on the created path to probe is created. >>> user.oauth_access_token.get_file_storage(volume='/~/Ubuntu One', path='/Websites/') <Response [404]> >>> user.oauth_access_token.put_file_storage(volume='/~/Ubuntu One', path='/Websites/', data={"kind": "directory"}) <Response [200]> >>> user.oauth_access_token.get_file_storage(volume='/~/Ubuntu One', path='/Websites/').json() {u'content_path': u'/content/~/Ubuntu One/Websites', u'generation': 10784, u'generation_created': 10784, u'has_children': False, u'is_live': True, u'key': u'MOQgjSieTb2Wrr5ziRbNtA', u'kind': u'directory', u'parent_path': u'/~/Ubuntu One', u'path': u'/Websites', u'resource_path': u'/~/Ubuntu One/Websites', u'volume_path': u'/volumes/~/Ubuntu One', u'when_changed': u'2013-10-22T15:34:04Z', u'when_created': u'2013-10-22T15:34:04Z'} So it works, it's great I'm happy about that. But I can't share a folder. My question is? How can I share a folder using the api? I found no web api to do this, the Ubuntu One SyncDaemon tool is the only mention on solving this https://one.ubuntu.com/developer/files/store_files/syncdaemontool#ubuntuone.platform.tools.SyncDaemonTool.offer_share But I'm reluctant to maintain a DBUS and a daemon in my server for every Ubuntu One connection I have authorization for. Any one have an idea how can I using a web API to programmatically share a folder? even better using the OAuth authorization tokens that I already have.

    Read the article

  • CIFS - Default security mechanism requested (Mounted Share)

    - by André Faria
    The following message appear every time I reboot/boot my ubuntu 12.04.1 CIFS VFS: default security mechanism requested. The default security mechanism will be upgraded from nbtlm to ntlmv2 in kernel realese 3.3 I'am searching for a solution, if there is one for this message, I really don't understand it. Following my fstab //192.168.0.10/D$/ /mnt/winshare/ cifs user,file_mode=0777,dir_mode=0777,rw,gid=1000,credentials=/root/creds 0 0 I can use my mounted folder with no problem, I just want to know why this message is appearing and if have something that I can do to fix this problem or hide this warning. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Annoying security "feature" in Windows 2008 R2 burns me, but not DVD's

    - by Stan Spotts
    This stuff drives me nuts. I'm all for hardening servers, and reducing security footprints, but I always want the option to allow me to get work done versus securing my system. I use Windows Server 2008 R2 as my laptop OS for a number of reasons I don't need to review here. It's pimped out to work like Windows 7 for most things. But my DVD writer is crippled, and evidently it's on purpose: http://blogs.technet.com/askcore/archive/2010/02/19/windows-server-2008-r2-no-recording-tab-for-cd-dvd-burner.aspx I don't WANT to log in as the local administrator to burn a damned DVD.  WTF isn't this configurable through the registry, or better yet, group policy? There are no security settings that I should not have the option to enable or disable.

    Read the article

  • Oracle SOA Security for OUAF Web Services

    - by Anthony Shorten
    With the ability to use Oracle SOA Suite 11g with the Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products, an additional consideration needs to be configured to ensure correct integration. That additional consideration is security. By default, SOA Suite propagates any credentials from the calling application through to the interfacing applications. In most cases, this behavior is not appropriate as the calling application may use different credential stores and also some interfaces are “disconnected” from a calling application (for example, a file based load using the File Adapter). These situations require that the Web Service calls to the Oracle Utilities Application Framework based products have their own valid credentials. To do this the credentials must be attached at design time or at run time to provide the necessary credentials for the call. There are a number of techniques that can be used to do this: At design time, when integrating a Web Service from an Oracle Utilities Application Framework based product you can attach the security policy “oracle/wss_username_token_client_policy” in the composite.xml view. In this view select the Web Service you want to attach the policy to and right click to display the context menu and select “Configure WS Policies” and select the above policy from the list. If you are using SSL then you can use “oracle/wss_username_token_over_ssl_client_policy” instead. At design time, you can also specify the credential key (csf-key) associated with the above policy by selecting the policy and clicking “Edit Config Override Properties”. You name the key appropriately. Everytime the SOA components are deployed the credential configuration is also sent. You can also do this after deployment, or what I call at “runtime”, by specifying the policy and credential key in the Fusion Middleware Control. Refer to the Fusion Middleware Control documentation on how to do this. To complete the configuration you need to add a map and the key specified earlier to the credential store in the Oracle WebLogic instance used for Oracle SOA Suite. From Fusion Middleware Control, you do this by selecting the domain the SOA Suite is installed in a select “Credentials” from the context menu. You now need to add the credentials by adding the map “oracle.wsm.security” (the name is IMPORTANT) and creating a key with the necessary valid credentials. The example below added a key called “mdm.key”. The name I used is for example only. You can name the key anything you like as long as it corresponds to the key you specified in the design time component. Note: I used SYSUSER as an example credentials in the example, in real life you would use another credential as SYSUSER is not appropriate for production use. This key can be reused for other Oracle Utilities Application Framework Web Service integrations or you can use other keys for individual Web Service calls. Once the key is created and the SOA Suite components deployed the transactions should be able to be called as necessary. If you need to change the password for the credentials it can be done using the Fusion Middleware Control functionality.

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - Security and Privacy in Android Apps

    Google I/O 2012 - Security and Privacy in Android Apps Jon Larimer, Kenny Root Android provides features and APIs that allow development of secure applications, and you should be using them. This session will start with an overview of Android platform security features, then dig into the ways that you can leverage them to protect your users and avoid introducing vulnerabilities. You'll also learn the best practices for protecting user privacy in your apps. For all I/O 2012 sessions, go to developers.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 162 8 ratings Time: 01:01:03 More in Science & Technology

    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 | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >