Search Results

Search found 3707 results on 149 pages for 'secure'.

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 51/149 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • Implementing One-way Encryption in PHP

    <b>Webreference:</b> "To demonstrate one-way encryption in PHP, this article describes how to start building a secure online diary application. The one-way encryption will allow the diary to log a user in and generally encrypt the contents of the file that it loads."

    Read the article

  • SOA 11g ??????????·?????? OracleDB 11g ??????

    - by katsumii
    ??????????????????????? Fusion Middleware ? DB11g ???????????????????????????????????Oracle Fusion Middleware MAA Best PracticesOracle Fusion Middleware SOA 11g Release 1: Using Secure Files??????????????????DB11g??????SecureFiles ????????????????????PDF?????????SOA?????????????????????????????·???????????????????? Enterprise Manager 12c ?????1???????????????????????SOA Suite????????SOA??????????????????????????????  

    Read the article

  • PHP-FPM and APC for shared hosting?

    - by Tiffany Walker
    We are looking into finding a way to get APC to only create one cache per account / site. This can be done with Fastcgi (last update 2006…) but with Fastcgid APC will have to create multiple caches for multiple processes run by the same account. To get around this problem, we have been looking into PHP-FPM PHP process manager allows multiple PHP processes to share a single APC cache. But from what I have read (I hope I'm wrong) , even if you create a pool per process, all sites accross all pools will share the same APC cache. This brings us back to the same problem as with shared Memcached: it's not secure ! On php-fpm's site I read that you can chroot php-fpm pools and define a specific UID and GID per pool… if this is the case then shouldn't APC have to use this user and not have access to other pools cache ? An article here (in 2011) suggests that you would need to run one process per pool creating multiple launchers on different ports and different config files with one pool per config file : http://groups.drupal.org/node/198168 Is this still neceessary ? If so what would be the impact of running say 800 processes of php-fpm ? Would it be mainly memory ? If so how can I work out what the memory impact would be ? I guess that it would be better to run 800 times php-fpm then to have accounts creating multiple APC caches for a single site ? If on average an account creates a 50MB cache and creates 3 caches per account that makes 150Mb per account which makes 120GB… However if each account uses on average only 50Mb that would make 40GB We will have at least 128GB of ram on our next server so 40GB is acceptable if running 800 x PHP-FPM does not create an overhead of more than 20GB ! What do you think is PHP-FPM the best way to go to provide secure APC cache on shared hosting with a server that has a decent amount of memory ? Or should I be looking at another system ? Thanks !

    Read the article

  • QoS for Cisco Router to Prioritize Voice and Interactive Traffic

    - by TJ Huffington
    I have a Cisco 891W NATing Voice and Data to the internet over a 10mbit/2mbit connection. Voice traffic gets degraded when I upload large files. Pings time out as well. I tried to configure a QoS policy but it's basically not doing anything. Voice traffic still degrades when upload bandwidth gets saturated. Here is my current configruation: class-map match-any QoS-Transactional match protocol ssh match protocol xwindows class-map match-any QoS-Voice match protocol rtp audio class-map match-any QoS-Bulk match protocol secure-nntp match protocol smtp match protocol tftp match protocol ftp class-map match-any QoS-Management match protocol snmp match protocol dns match protocol secure-imap class-map match-any QoS-Inter-Video match protocol rtp video class-map match-any QoS-Voice-Control match access-group name Voice-Control policy-map QoS-Priority-Output class QoS-Voice priority percent 25 set dscp ef class QoS-Inter-Video bandwidth remaining percent 10 set dscp af41 class QoS-Transactional bandwidth remaining percent 25 random-detect dscp-based set dscp af21 class QoS-Bulk bandwidth remaining percent 5 random-detect dscp-based set dscp af11 class QoS-Management bandwidth remaining percent 1 set dscp cs2 class QoS-Voice-Control priority percent 5 set dscp ef class class-default fair-queue interface FastEthernet8 bandwidth 1024 bandwidth receive 20480 ip address dhcp ip nat outside ip virtual-reassembly duplex auto speed auto auto discovery qos crypto map mymap max-reserved-bandwidth 80 service-policy output QoS-Priority-Output crypto map mymap 10 ipsec-isakmp set peer 1.2.3.4 default set transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA match address 110 qos pre-classify ! fa8 is my connection to the internet. Voice traffic goes over a VPN ("mymap") to the SIP server. That's why I specified "qos pre-classify" which I believe is the way to classify traffic over the VPN. However even when I ping a public IP while saturating upload bandwidth, the latency is exceptionally high. Is this configuration correct? Are there any suggestions that might make this work for my setup? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • QoS for Cisco Router to Prioritize Voice and Interactive Traffic

    - by TJ Huffington
    I have a Cisco 891W NATing Voice and Data to the internet over a 10mbit/2mbit connection. Voice traffic gets degraded when I upload large files. Pings time out as well. I tried to configure a QoS policy but it's basically not doing anything. Voice traffic still degrades when upload bandwidth gets saturated. Here is my current configruation: class-map match-any QoS-Transactional match protocol ssh match protocol xwindows class-map match-any QoS-Voice match protocol rtp audio class-map match-any QoS-Bulk match protocol secure-nntp match protocol smtp match protocol tftp match protocol ftp class-map match-any QoS-Management match protocol snmp match protocol dns match protocol secure-imap class-map match-any QoS-Inter-Video match protocol rtp video class-map match-any QoS-Voice-Control match access-group name Voice-Control policy-map QoS-Priority-Output class QoS-Voice priority percent 25 set dscp ef class QoS-Inter-Video bandwidth remaining percent 10 set dscp af41 class QoS-Transactional bandwidth remaining percent 25 random-detect dscp-based set dscp af21 class QoS-Bulk bandwidth remaining percent 5 random-detect dscp-based set dscp af11 class QoS-Management bandwidth remaining percent 1 set dscp cs2 class QoS-Voice-Control priority percent 5 set dscp ef class class-default fair-queue interface FastEthernet8 bandwidth 1024 bandwidth receive 20480 ip address dhcp ip nat outside ip virtual-reassembly duplex auto speed auto auto discovery qos crypto map mymap max-reserved-bandwidth 80 service-policy output QoS-Priority-Output crypto map mymap 10 ipsec-isakmp set peer 1.2.3.4 default set transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA match address 110 qos pre-classify ! fa8 is my connection to the internet. Voice traffic goes over a VPN ("mymap") to the SIP server. That's why I specified "qos pre-classify" which I believe is the way to classify traffic over the VPN. However even when I ping a public IP while saturating upload bandwidth, the latency is exceptionally high. Is this configuration correct? Are there any suggestions that might make this work for my setup? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Gmail: security warning icon

    - by Notetaker
    Hello, I just enabled some Gmail Labs programs in my Gmail account, and then I noticed the orange triangle icon with an exclamation mark in it at the end of the address bar of my Google Chrome browser. Clicking on it brought forth a "Security Information' dialog box, with the following messages: "--mail.google.com The identity of website has been verified by Thawlte SGC CA. --Your connection to mail.google.com is encrypted with 128-bit encryption. However, this page includes other resources which are not secure. These resources can be viewed by others while in transit, and can be modified by an attacker to change the look or behavior of the page." I then logged into two of my other Gmail accounts, one of which has no Gmail Labs programs enabled, and the other with 1 program enabled quite some time ago, both with the same result as above (i.e., with the appearance of the orange triangle warning sign in the address bar). I don't remember seeing the orange triangle before, but I'm not sure if it has ever appeared or not. I have "Always use https" enabled for my Gmail accounts. My questions are: Is there a way to identify and remove these un-secure "resources"? (Could enabling Gmail Labs programs have brought these on?) Meanwhile, are my Gmail accounts compromised and unsafe to use? If so, what should I being doing about that now? After this problem is solved, would I need to reset the password to my Gmail accounts, and/or take any other measures to restore their security? Many thanks for answering my questions!

    Read the article

  • How to securely enable file sharing over PPTP on Windows 2008 Server

    - by Damage
    I have set up a Windows SBS 2003 domain (LAN) and a stand-alone Windows 2008 Server (web server) at another location (workgroup). I established PPTP VPN connection (SBS dials web server) over which users from LAN should be able to access web server. On web server I enabled TCP/IPv4 and File and Printer sharing protocol. It has a few external addresses (one of them is default) AND one local address (192.x.x.x) assigned to network adapter. Firewall allows port 445 for file sharing. There's the problem - I can not enable web server file shares to be visible to LAN users and ONLY to LAN users: From SBS I can access webserver but I cannot access webserver from LAN workstations (XP, Vista). I have had same configuration - I have just replaced old (web server) Windows 2003 server with 2008 so SBS settings are the same (static route, DNS etc.). How can I enable file sharing on web server for LAN workstations? Now I have opened File and printer sharing to the internet which is of course totaly unsecure. I tried to secure the tunnel so I moved RAS (VPN) connection (Network Center) on web server to "Private" profile and moved firewall port 445 to "Private" profile but suddenly file sharing does not work and I cannot telnet webserver on port 445. How can I secure file sharing so I do not have to open it to the internet?

    Read the article

  • Any Recommendations for a Web Based Large File Transfer System?

    - by Glen Richards
    I'm looking for a server software product that: Allows my users to share large files with: The general public securely to 1 or more people (notification via email, optionally with a token that gives them x period of time to download) Allows anyone in the general public to share files with my users. Perhaps by invitation. Has to be user friendly enough to allow my users to use this with out having to bug me as the admin. It needs to be a system that we can install on our own server (we don't want shared data sitting on anyone else's server) A web based solution. Using some kind or secure comms channel would be good too, eg, ssh Files to share could be over 1 GB. I found the question below. WebDav does not sound user friendly enough: http://serverfault.com/questions/86878/recommendations-for-a-secure-and-simple-dropbox-system I've done a lot of searching, but I can't get the search terms right. There are too many services that provide this, but I want something we can install on our own server. A last resort would be to roll my own. Any ideas appreciated. Glen EDIT Sorry Tom and Jeff but Glen specifically says that he's looking for a 'product' so given that I specialise in this field thought that my expertise in this area may have been of use to him. I don't see how him writing services is going to be easy for him to maintain going forward (large IT admin overhead) or simple for his users and the general public to work with.

    Read the article

  • Chroot jail of Nginx and php

    - by sqren
    I'm hosting multiple websites on one VPS, and want to chroot each website, eg. /chroot/website1 /chroot/website2 I'm using makejail, which is a highlevel tool, for creating the jails, and copying the libraries and dependencies. Easy peasy. Each website will need nginx, php and mysql. For php I'm using php5-fpm which actually supports chroot by configuration, however I'm not using this (maybe I should?) My question is which approach of the following three is the better: 1) Every website will have its own seperated instance of nginx, php and mysql. The downside is, that each webserver + php has to listen to a different port. I also need a "master" nginx web server in front of them, reverse proxying to the chrooted servers behind it. Probably most secure, but also most advanced. 2) I don't make any chroot jails manually. I setup one nginx web server, that proxies php requests to php-fpm, on different ports. I can have multiple php-fpm configurations each with is own chroot'ed folder. This is quite managable - however only php will be chrooted. Not the actual webserver. Is this secure enough. Also, I tried this option out, and it seems I will need to use TCP instead of sockets for connecting to MySQL. 3) You tell me ;) I'm quite new to chroot jailing, so please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions. I've been reading all the tutorials I could find, however, I find the market for chroot guides very scarce. Any help or inputs much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • NIS: which mechanism hides shadow.byname for unpriviledged users?

    - by Mark Salzer
    On some Linux box (SLES 11.1) which is a NIS client I can do as root: ypcat shadow.byname and get output, i.e. some lines with the encrypted passwords, amongst other information. On the same Linux box, if I run the same command as unpriviledged user, I get No such map shadow.byname. Reason: No such map in server's domain Now I am surprised. My good old knowlege says that shadow passwords in NIS are absurd because there is no access control or authentication in the protocol and thus every (unpriviledged) user can access the shadow map and thereby obtain the encrypted passwords. Obviously we have a different picture here. Unfortunately I don't have access to the NIS server to figure out what is happening. My only guess is that the NIS master gives the map only to clients conection from a priviledged port (1024), but this is only an uneducated guess. What mechanisms are there in current NIS implementations to lead to a behavior like the above? How "secure" are they? Can the be circumvented easily? Or are shadow passwords in NIS as secure as the good old shadow files?

    Read the article

  • Firefox and Chrome keeps forcing HTTPS on Rails app using nginx/Passenger

    - by Steve
    I've got a really weird problem here where every time I try to browse my Rails app in non-SSL mode Chrome (v16) and Firefox (v7) keeps forcing my website to be served in HTTPS. My Rails application is deployed on a Ubuntu VPS using Capistrano, nginx, Passenger and a wildcard SSL certificate. I have set these parameters for port 80 in the nginx.conf: passenger_set_cgi_param HTTP_X_FORWARDED_PROTO http; passenger_set_cgi_param HTTPS off; The long version of my nginx.conf can be found here: https://gist.github.com/2eab42666c609b015bff The ssl-redirect.include file contains: rewrite ^/sign_up https://$host$request_uri? permanent ; rewrite ^/login https://$host$request_uri? permanent ; rewrite ^/settings/password https://$host$request_uri? permanent ; It is to make sure those three pages use HTTPS when coming from non-SSL request. My production.rb file contains this line: # Enable HTTP and HTTPS in parallel config.middleware.insert_before Rack::Lock, Rack::SSL, :exclude => proc { |env| env['HTTPS'] != 'on' } I have tried redirecting to HTTP via nginx rewrites, Ruby on Rails redirects and also used Rails view url using HTTP protocol. My application.rb file contains this methods used in a before_filter hook: def force_http if Rails.env.production? if request.ssl? redirect_to :protocol => 'http', :status => :moved_permanently end end end Every time I try to redirect to HTTP non-SSL the browser attempts to redirect it back to HTTPS causing an infinite redirect loop. Safari, however, works just fine. Even when I've disabled serving SSL in nginx the browsers still try to connect to the site using HTTPS. I should also mention that when I pushed my app on to Heroku, the Rails redirect work just fine for all browsers. The reason why I want to use non-SSL is that my homepage contains non-secure dynamic embedded objects and a non-secure CDN and I want to prevent security warnings. I don't know what is causing the browser to keep forcing HTTPS requests.

    Read the article

  • Why is my RapidSSL Certificate chain is not trusted on ubuntu?

    - by olouv
    I have a website that works perfectly with Chrome & other browser but i get some errors with PHP in CLI mode so i'm investigating it, running this: openssl s_client -showcerts -verify 32 -connect dev.carlipa-online.com:443 Quite suprisingly my HTTPS appears untrusted with a Verify return code: 27 (certificate not trusted) Here is the raw output : verify depth is 32 CONNECTED(00000003) depth=2 C = US, O = GeoTrust Inc., CN = GeoTrust Global CA verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate verify return:1 depth=2 C = US, O = GeoTrust Inc., CN = GeoTrust Global CA verify error:num=27:certificate not trusted verify return:1 depth=1 C = US, O = "GeoTrust, Inc.", CN = RapidSSL CA verify return:1 depth=0 serialNumber = khKDXfnS0WtB8DgV0CAdsmWrXl-Ia9wZ, C = FR, O = *.carlipa-online.com, OU = GT44535187, OU = See www.rapidssl.com/resources/cps (c)12, OU = Domain Control Validated - RapidSSL(R), CN = *.carlipa-online.com verify return:1 So GeoTrust Global CA appears to be not trusted on the system (Ubuntu 11.10). Added Equifax_Secure_CA to try to solve this... But i get in this case Verify return code: 19 (self signed certificate in certificate chain) ! Raw output : verify depth is 32 CONNECTED(00000003) depth=3 C = US, O = Equifax, OU = Equifax Secure Certificate Authority verify error:num=19:self signed certificate in certificate chain verify return:1 depth=3 C = US, O = Equifax, OU = Equifax Secure Certificate Authority verify return:1 depth=2 C = US, O = GeoTrust Inc., CN = GeoTrust Global CA verify return:1 depth=1 C = US, O = "GeoTrust, Inc.", CN = RapidSSL CA verify return:1 depth=0 serialNumber = khKDXfnS0WtB8DgV0CAdsmWrXl-Ia9wZ, C = FR, O = *.carlipa-online.com, OU = GT44535187, OU = See www.rapidssl.com/resources/cps (c)12, OU = Domain Control Validated - RapidSSL(R), CN = *.carlipa-online.com verify return:1 Edit Looks like my server does not trust/provide the Equifax Root CA, however i do correctly have the file in /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/Equifax...

    Read the article

  • Cannot connect on TFS 2012 server through SSL with invalid certificate

    - by DaveWut
    I saw the problem on some forums and even here, but not as specific as mine. So here's the thing, So I've configured a TFS 2012 server, on one of my personnel server at home, and now, I'm trying to make it available through the internet, with the help of apache2 on a different UNIX based, physical server. The thing is working perfectly, I don't have any problem accessing the address https://tfs.something.com/tfs through my browser. The address can be pinged and I do have access to the TFS control panel through it. How does it work? Well, with apache2 you can set a virtual host and set up the ProxyPass and ProxyPassReserver setting, so the traffic can externally comes from a secure SSL connection, through a specified domain or sub-domain, but it can be locally redirect on a clear http session on a different port. This is my current setup. As I already said, I can access the web interface, but when I'm trying to connect with Visual Studio 2012, it can't be done. Here's the error I receive: http://i.imgur.com/TLQIn.png The technical information tells me: The underlying connection was closed: Could not establish trust relationship for the SSL/TLS secure channel. My SSL certificate is invalid and was automatically generated on my UNIX server. Even if I try to add it in the Trusted Root Certification Authorities either on my TFS server or on my local workstation, it doesn't work. I still receive the same error. Is there's a way to completely ignore certificate validation? If not, what's have I done? I mean, I've added the certificate in the trusted root certificates, it should works as mentioned on some forums... If you need more information, please ask me, I'll be pleased to provide you more. Dave

    Read the article

  • Way to speed up load-balanced ssl using nginx?

    - by paulnsorensen
    So the setup for our website is 4 nodes running rails 3 and nginx 1 that all use the same GoDaddy certificate. Because we are a paid site, we have to maintain PCI-DSS compliance and thus have to use the more expensive SSL ciphers -- also we force SSL using Rack. I've recently switched over to Linode's NodeBalancer (which I've read is an HACluster), and we're not getting the performance we'd ideally like. From what I've read, it looks like terminating the SSL on the nodes using the high cipher is what is causing the poor performance, but I'd like to be thorough. Is there anything I can do? I've read about other ways to terminate the SSL before the NodeBalancer (like using stud), but I don't know enough about these solutions. We certainly don't want to do anything experimental or anything that has a single point of failure. If there really isn't anything I can do to speed up the SSL handshake, my alternative would be to support certain pages on Rails using a secure and insecure subdomain. I've found a few guides that walk through that, but my resulting question is in this situation, would it be better to have nginx handle forcing ssl on the secure subdomain instead of rails? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Trying to use a SmartHost with my Exchange 2010 server

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I'm trying to use a SmartHost with my Exchange 2010 Server. SmartHost details: Secure SMTPS: securemail.internode.on.net 465 <-- Note: that's port 465 Configure your existing SMTP settings (in your email program) to: use authentication (enter your Internode username and password, enter your username as [email protected]). enable SSL for sending email (SMTPS). So I've added the smart host details to my Org Config -> Hub Transport. I then used PowerShell to add the port:- Set-SendConnector "securemail.internode.on.net" -port 465 I've then added my username/password (as suggested above) to the SmartHost as Basic Authentication (with no TLS). Then I try sending an email and I get the following error message :- 451 4.4.0 Primary target IP address responded with: "421 4.4.2 Connection dropped due to ConnectionReset." So i'm not sure how to continue. I also tried ticking the TLS box but stll I get the same error. If i don't use SMTPS (secure SMTP, on port 465) and use basic SMTP on port 25 with no Authentication, email gets sent. Any ideas? EDIT: Btw, I can telnet to that server on port 465 from my mail server .. just to make sure i'm not getting firewall'd, etc.

    Read the article

  • Installation of Active Directory on separate VM from DNS does not entierly work - not sure why

    - by René Kåbis
    Not sure what I am doing wrong here. I have a moderately midrange server (16 cores, 2Ghz, 32GB ECC REG RAM, 6TB storage, nothing too extreme) where I am running Hyper-V (Server 2012 R2 Enterprise) in order to provision virtual machines. So why an AD separate from DNS? I want redundancy. I want to be able to move VMs and back them up individually and not have too many services on any one VM. I have already provisioned a VM with DNS, and have set it up right -- essentially, I have: Set up Static IP’s for everyone involved. Installed the DNS service on the DNS VM. Created a forward lookup zone and a reverse lookup zone (primary zone) xyz.ca Configured the zones to use nonsecure and secure dynamic updates (i will change this to secure later after the domain controller is online). Created a A record for the DC in the forward lookup zone (and a reverse ptr) Changed DC’s DNS server (network settings) to the new DNS server. Checked that I can ping the dns server from the new DC by hostname. When I went ahead and did a DCpromo on the DC, and un-cheked the “install DNS” option, everything seemed to go well (no error messages), but I saw no changes on the DNS server whatsoever (no additional settings). Plus, the DNS server seems to be unable to join the domain, as it claims that the domain is not discoverable. As a final note, I do run Symantec Endpoint Protection, which includes a firewall and most settings set as default. I have not yet tried turning this off, but my experience has been that if a service would open up a port on a Windows firewall, it would do the same through Symantec. There is pretty tight integration these days with corporate-class AV and Windows. I have a template vhdx fully set up (just short of any special roles and features) that I can use to replace the current AD VM with, so doing this all over again is not too much skin off of my nose.

    Read the article

  • What folders to encrypt with EFS on Windows 7 laptop?

    - by Joe Schmoe
    Since I've been using my laptop more as a laptop recently (carrying it around) I am now evaluating my strategy to protect confidential information in case it is stolen. Keep in mind that my laptop is 6 years old (Lenovo T61 with 8 GB or RAM, 2GHz dual core CPU). It runs Windows 7 fine but it is no speedy demon. It doesn't support AES instruction set. I've been using TrueCrypt volume mounted on demand for really important stuff like financial statements forever. Nothing else is encrypted. I just finished my evaluation of EFS, Bitlocker and took a closer look at TrueCrypt again. I've come to conclusion that boot partition encryption via Bitlocker or TrueCrypt is not worth the hassle. I may decide in the future to use Bitlocker or TrueCrypt to encrypt one of the data volumes but at this point I intend to use EFS to encrypt parts of my hard drive that contain data that I wouldn't want exposed. The purpose of this post is to get your feedback about what folders should be encrypted from the general point of view (of course everyone will have something specific in addition) Here is what I thought of so far (will update if I think of something else): 1) AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook - Outlook files 2) AppData\Local\Thunderbird\Profiles and AppData\Roaming\Thunderbird\Profiles- Thunderbird profiles, not sure yet where exactly data is stored. 3) AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\djdsakdjh.default\bookmarkbackups - Firefox bookmark backup. Is there a separate location for "main" Firefox bookmark file? I haven't figured it out yet. 4) Bookmarks for Chrome (don't know where it's bookmarks are) and Internet Explorer ($Username\Favorites) - I don't really use them but why not to secure that as well. 5) Downloads\, My Documents\ and My Pictures\ folders I don't think I need to encrypt, say, latest service pack for Visual Studio. So I will probably create subfolder called "Secure" in all of these folders and set it to "Encrypted". Anything sensitive I will save in this folder. Any other suggestions? Again, this is from the point of view of your "regular office user".

    Read the article

  • Forcing a particular SSL protocol for an nginx proxying server

    - by vitch
    I am developing an application against a remote https web service. While developing I need to proxy requests from my local development server (running nginx on ubuntu) to the remote https web server. Here is the relevant nginx config: server { server_name project.dev; listen 443; ssl on; ssl_certificate /etc/nginx/ssl/server.crt; ssl_certificate_key /etc/nginx/ssl/server.key; location / { proxy_pass https://remote.server.com; proxy_set_header Host remote.server.com; proxy_redirect off; } } The problem is that the remote HTTPS server can only accept connections over SSLv3 as can be seen from the following openssl calls. Not working: $ openssl s_client -connect remote.server.com:443 CONNECTED(00000003) 139849073899168:error:140790E5:SSL routines:SSL23_WRITE:ssl handshake failure:s23_lib.c:177: --- no peer certificate available --- No client certificate CA names sent --- SSL handshake has read 0 bytes and written 226 bytes --- New, (NONE), Cipher is (NONE) Secure Renegotiation IS NOT supported Compression: NONE Expansion: NONE --- Working: $ openssl s_client -connect remote.server.com:443 -ssl3 CONNECTED(00000003) <snip> --- SSL handshake has read 1562 bytes and written 359 bytes --- New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is RC4-SHA Server public key is 1024 bit Secure Renegotiation IS NOT supported Compression: NONE Expansion: NONE SSL-Session: Protocol : SSLv3 Cipher : RC4-SHA <snip> With the current setup my nginx proxy gives a 502 Bad Gateway when I connect to it in a browser. Enabling debug in the error log I can see the message: [info] 1451#0: *16 peer closed connection in SSL handshake while SSL handshaking to upstream. I tried adding ssl_protocols SSLv3; to the nginx configuration but that didn't help. Does anyone know how I can set this up to work correctly?

    Read the article

  • network policy + WPA enterprise (tkip) Windows 2008 R2

    - by Aceth
    hi I've attempted the following guide and in a bit of a pickle. http://techblog.mirabito.net.au/?p=87 My main goal is to have a username / password based wireless authentication with active directory integration. I keep getting the error Network Policy Server denied access to a user. Contact the Network Policy Server administrator for more information. User: Security ID: domain\rhysbeta Account Name: rhysbeta Account Domain: domain Fully Qualified Account Name: domain\rhysbeta Client Machine: Security ID: NULL SID Account Name: - Fully Qualified Account Name: - OS-Version: - Called Station Identifier: 00-12-BF-00-71-3C:wirelessname Calling Station Identifier: 00-23-76-5D-1E-31 NAS: NAS IPv4 Address: 0.0.0.0 NAS IPv6 Address: - NAS Identifier: - NAS Port-Type: Wireless - IEEE 802.11 NAS Port: 2 RADIUS Client: Client Friendly Name: Belkin54g Client IP Address: x.x.x.10 Authentication Details: Connection Request Policy Name: Secure Wireless Connections Network Policy Name: Secure Wireless Connections Authentication Provider: Windows Authentication Server: srvr.example.com Authentication Type: EAP EAP Type: - Account Session Identifier: - Logging Results: Accounting information was written to the local log file. Reason Code: 22 Reason: The client could not be authenticated because the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Type cannot be processed by the server. ` I would love to have it so that non domain devices

    Read the article

  • Any Recommendations for a Web Based Large File Transfer System?

    - by Glen Richards
    I'm looking for a server software product that: Allows my users to share large files with: The general public securely to 1 or more people (notification via email, optionally with a token that gives them x period of time to download) Allows anyone in the general public to share files with my users. Perhaps by invitation. Has to be user friendly enough to allow my users to use this with out having to bug me as the admin. It needs to be a system that we can install on our own server (we don't want shared data sitting on anyone else's server) A web based solution. Using some kind or secure comms channel would be good too, eg, ssh Files to share could be over 1 GB. I found the question below. WebDav does not sound user friendly enough: http://serverfault.com/questions/86878/recommendations-for-a-secure-and-simple-dropbox-system I've done a lot of searching, but I can't get the search terms right. There are too many services that provide this, but I want something we can install on our own server. A last resort would be to roll my own. Any ideas appreciated. Glen EDIT Sorry Tom and Jeff but Glen specifically says that he's looking for a 'product' so given that I specialise in this field thought that my expertise in this area may have been of use to him. I don't see how him writing services is going to be easy for him to maintain going forward (large IT admin overhead) or simple for his users and the general public to work with.

    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 | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >