Search Results

Search found 55091 results on 2204 pages for 'obiee system security'.

Page 82/2204 | < Previous Page | 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89  | Next Page >

  • How does WCF RIA Services handle authentication/authorization/security?

    - by Edward Tanguay
    Since no one answered this question: What issues to consider when rolling your own data-backend for Silverlight / AJAX on non-ASP.NET server? Let me ask it another way: How does WCF RIA Services handle authentication/authorization/security at a low level? e.g. how does the application on the server determine that the incoming http request to change data is coming from a valid client and not from non-desirable source, e.g. a denial-of-service bot?

    Read the article

  • What kind of security issues will I have if I provide my web app write access?

    - by iama
    I would like to give my web application write access to a particular folder on my web server. My web app can create files on this folder and can write data to those files. However, the web app does not provide any interface to the users nor does it publicize the fact that it can create files or write to files. Am I susceptible to any security vulnerabilities? If so, what are they?

    Read the article

  • What can I do to prevent system power downs?

    - by Joe King
    Yesterday I was given my brother's old laptop - core i7, 2.67GHz, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Win7 64 bit. It's a Sony Vaio Z11. Approx 18 months old. When running something computationally intensive, the fan starts up and after about 30 secs it just powers itself down with no warning. I guess it is overheating. There is nothing in the event logs to suggest what is causing it - the only thing I see is "the last system shutdown was unexpected" or something similar. This is a problem for me because I use a lot of number crunching apps, which pretty much makes it useless to me. I would like to know if there is anything I can do, other than the obvious things I've done already - open up and clean out dust, re-install the OS. According to my brother, this problem started about 6 months ago when it was already outside warranty. If it's just used for simple things - web browsing, word processing etc, the problem does not occur. Any ideas for what I can do to fix this ? Update: I found that the laptop has 2 hardware settings for graphics: Speed and Stamina - the Speed setting seems to use an nvidia GEforce GT 330M, while the Stamina setting uses an Intel chipset. With the setting on Speed, I can hear the fan the whole time, and the system powers down after a short while (5-10 mins) even just doing basic tasks (browsing this site for example), but doesn't shut down if I just leave it switched on. In this mode it also sometimes just freezes the screen and I have to power off myself. However on Stamina setting it only powers down when doing number crunching and never freezes the screen.

    Read the article

  • Java embedded applet page security, how to properly meet its recquirements?

    - by meds
    If I have an applet embedded in a webpage and I want it to connect to server side software (also written in Java) how can I do this properly on a windows machine running local host? Would I have to run the java application from within the localhost directory and access the applet html from a browser (i.e. localhost/applet.html)? From what I undestand if you don't have everything setup correctly you won't be able to connect because of Java's security requirements. Thanks for any help :)

    Read the article

  • SINGLE SIGN ON SECURITY THREAT! FACEBOOK access_token broadcast in the open/clear

    - by MOKANA
    Subsequent to my posting there was a remark made that this was not really a question but I thought I did indeed postulate one. So that there is no ambiquity here is the question with a lead in: Since there is no data sent from Facebook during the Canvas Load process that is not at some point divulged, including the access_token, session and other data that could uniquely identify a user, does any one see any other way other than adding one more layer, i.e., a password, sent over the wire via HTTPS along with the access_toekn, that will insure unique untampered with security by the user? Using Wireshark I captured the local broadcast while loading my Canvas Application page. I was hugely surprised to see the access_token broadcast in the open, viewable for any one to see. This access_token is appended to any https call to the Facebook OpenGraph API. Using facebook as a single click log on has now raised huge concerns for me. It is stored in a session object in memory and the cookie is cleared upon app termination and after reviewing the FB.Init calls I saw a lot of HTTPS calls so I assumed the access_token was always encrypted. But last night I saw in the status bar a call from what was simply an http call that included the App ID so I felt I should sniff the Application Canvas load sequence. Today I did sniff the broadcast and in the attached image you can see that there are http calls with the access_token being broadcast in the open and clear for anyone to gain access to. Am I missing something, is what I am seeing and my interpretation really correct. If any one can sniff and get the access_token they can theorically make calls to the Graph API via https, even though the call back would still need to be the site established in Facebook's application set up. But what is truly a security threat is anyone using the access_token for access to their own site. I do not see the value of a single sign on via Facebook if the only thing that was established as secure was the access_token - becuase for what I can see it clearly is not secure. Access tokens that never have an expire date do not change. Access_tokens are different for every user, to access to another site could be held tight to just a single user, but compromising even a single user's data is unacceptable. http://www.creatingstory.com/images/InTheOpen.png Went back and did more research on this: FINDINGS: Went back an re ran the canvas application to verify that it was not any of my code that was not broadcasting. In this call: HTTP GET /connect.php/en_US/js/CacheData HTTP/1.1 The USER ID is clearly visible in the cookie. So USER_ID's are fully visible, but they are already. Anyone can go to pretty much any ones page and hover over the image and see the USER ID. So no big threat. APP_ID are also easily obtainable - but . . . http://www.creatingstory.com/images/InTheOpen2.png The above file clearly shows the FULL ACCESS TOKEN clearly in the OPEN via a Facebook initiated call. Am I wrong. TELL ME I AM WRONG because I want to be wrong about this. I have since reset my app secret so I am showing the real sniff of the Canvas Page being loaded. Additional data 02/20/2011: @ifaour - I appreciate the time you took to compile your response. I am pretty familiar with the OAuth process and have a pretty solid understanding of the signed_request unpacking and utilization of the access_token. I perform a substantial amount of my processing on the server and my Facebook server side flows are all complete and function without any flaw that I know of. The application secret is secure and never passed to the front end application and is also changed regularly. I am being as fanatical about security as I can be, knowing there is so much I don’t know that could come back and bite me. Two huge access_token issues: The issues concern the possible utilization of the access_token from the USER AGENT (browser). During the FB.INIT() process of the Facebook JavaScript SDK, a cookie is created as well as an object in memory called a session object. This object, along with the cookie contain the access_token, session, a secret, and uid and status of the connection. The session object is structured such that is supports both the new OAuth and the legacy flows. With OAuth, the access_token and status are pretty much al that is used in the session object. The first issue is that the access_token is used to make HTTPS calls to the GRAPH API. If you had the access_token, you could do this from any browser: https://graph.facebook.com/220439?access_token=... and it will return a ton of information about the user. So any one with the access token can gain access to a Facebook account. You can also make additional calls to any info the user has granted access to the application tied to the access_token. At first I thought that a call into the GRAPH had to have a Callback to the URL established in the App Setup, but I tested it as mentioned below and it will return info back right into the browser. Adding that callback feature would be a good idea I think, tightens things up a bit. The second issue is utilization of some unique private secured data that identifies the user to the third party data base, i.e., like in my case, I would use a single sign on to populate user information into my database using this unique secured data item (i.e., access_token which contains the APP ID, the USER ID, and a hashed with secret sequence). None of this is a problem on the server side. You get a signed_request, you unpack it with secret, make HTTPS calls, get HTTPS responses back. When a user has information entered via the USER AGENT(browser) that must be stored via a POST, this unique secured data element would be sent via HTTPS such that they are validated prior to data base insertion. However, If there is NO secured piece of unique data that is supplied via the single sign on process, then there is no way to guarantee unauthorized access. The access_token is the one piece of data that is utilized by Facebook to make the HTTPS calls into the GRAPH API. it is considered unique in regards to BOTH the USER and the APPLICATION and is initially secure via the signed_request packaging. If however, it is subsequently transmitted in the clear and if I can sniff the wire and obtain the access_token, then I can pretend to be the application and gain the information they have authorized the application to see. I tried the above example from a Safari and IE browser and it returned all of my information to me in the browser. In conclusion, the access_token is part of the signed_request and that is how the application initially obtains it. After OAuth authentication and authorization, i.e., the USER has logged into Facebook and then runs your app, the access_token is stored as mentioned above and I have sniffed it such that I see it stored in a Cookie that is transmitted over the wire, resulting in there being NO UNIQUE SECURED IDENTIFIABLE piece of information that can be used to support interaction with the database, or in other words, unless there were one more piece of secure data sent along with the access_token to my database, i.e., a password, I would not be able to discern if it is a legitimate call. Luckily I utilized secure AJAX via POST and the call has to come from the same domain, but I am sure there is a way to hijack that. I am totally open to any ideas on this topic on how to uniquely identify my USERS other than adding another layer (password) via this single sign on process or if someone would just share with me that I read and analyzed my data incorrectly and that the access_token is always secure over the wire. Mahalo nui loa in advance.

    Read the article

  • Windows user moving to Ubuntu 12.04. Where are the system tools, or equivalents?

    - by Big Endian
    I am a Windows user who has begun experimenting with Ubuntu. Ubuntu seems great, but for all the things it seems like I CAN'T do. How do I get to advanced administration stuff, like the list of drivers, all of the installed software, and something equivalent to Windows' Device Manager. I always heard that Linux was supposed to be very raw, and you had to have lots of computer experience to make it work. This seems just the opposite. Ubuntu seems very modern and user friendly, better in some regards than any operating system I have seen. Unfortunately, I can't find any of the guts of this system beneath all of the user friendly frosting... gunk... crap... stuff. I'm reminded more and more of an Apple computer (except Linux is more affordable :). So how do I peel back this layer and start using the computer? A solution other than installing Gnome 3 would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is canvas security model ignoring access-control-allow-origin headers?

    - by luklatlug
    It seems that even if you set the access-control-allow-origin header to allow access from mydomain.org to an image hosted on domain example.org, the canvas' origin-clean flag gets set to false, and trying to manipulate that image's pixel data will trigger a security exception. Shouldn't canvas' obey the access-control-allow-origin header and allow access to image's data without throwing an exception?

    Read the article

  • Is there any any merit to routinely restore a linux system, even if unnecessary?

    - by field_guy
    I do fieldwork with a number of computers running ubuntu performing critical tasks doing fieldwork. The computers are similarly configured with slight variations. Since we've had some configuration issues in the past, my boss is pressing for us to take an image of the installation on each computer, and restore each computer to that image before they are to go into the field. My preferred solution would be to write a common script that checks to ensure that the configuration of the system is correct and that the system is operational. If the computer has been verified, isn't restoring it to that configuration redundant? And are there any inherent problems with doing so? My reluctance stems from the fact that our software and configuration is subject to change in the field, but these changes must be made across all the computers. That means that when a change is made, all the restoration images have to be updated as well. The differences in the configuration of each of the computers live in /etc. In the event that restoration is required, I would prefer to keep a single image containing everything that is common to all machines, and have a snapshot of each computer's /etc directory to be used for restoring the state of that particular machine. What's the better approach?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Security Exception when Switch IIS7 to Use UNC Path for Content

    - by Jeremy H.
    I have a Windows Server 2008 R2 box running IIS7.5 with Medium Trust configured for ASP.NET. When I have the website running from local content (e.g.: c:\inetpub\wwwroot) everything works fine. When I change IIS to use a UNC path for the content (e.g.: \\computer\wwwroot) I get the following error: Security Exception Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file. Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Data.SqlClient.SqlClientPermission, System.Data, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed. I'm trying to figure out why ASP.NET/IIS would allow for the SQL call when using local content but not when using a UNC path. Any ideas what I need to do to use a UNC path from IIS7 properly?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Security Exception when Switch IIS7 to Use UNC Path for Content

    - by Jeremy H.
    I have a Windows Server 2008 R2 box running IIS7.5 with Medium Trust configured for ASP.NET. When I have the website running from local content (e.g.: c:\inetpub\wwwroot) everything works fine. When I change IIS to use a UNC path for the content (e.g.: \\computer\wwwroot) I get the following error: Security Exception Description: The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy. To grant this application the required permission please contact your system administrator or change the application's trust level in the configuration file. Exception Details: System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Data.SqlClient.SqlClientPermission, System.Data, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed. I'm trying to figure out why ASP.NET/IIS would allow for the SQL call when using local content but not when using a UNC path. Any ideas what I need to do to use a UNC path from IIS7 properly?

    Read the article

  • Norton Security Suite Symantec Download Manager Error: "Error writing to disk"

    - by Stephen Pace
    My broadband provider (Comcast) decided to switch their 'included with service' security suite from McAfee to Norton Security Suite. Their email directed me to a site that downloaded the Symantec Download Manager (NortonDL.exe) and that went fine. I'm running Windows 7 32-bit and running this application pops up the standard User Account Control message and the software is correctly identified as coming from Symantec. I answer 'yes' to allow the software to install and upon launch immediately get an "Error writing to disk" error. I searched the Internet for this error, but mainly I find Comcast users complaining about the same issue with no resolution other than to call Symantec. I found no one suggesting a successful workaround and it appeared that most of the support calls took up to three hours. I'd like to avoid that if possible. Ideas? To be honest, I'm getting close to bagging this installation and just moving to Microsoft Security Essentials.

    Read the article

  • Chrome shows "The site's security certificate is not trusted" error

    - by Emerald214
    From this morning I get this error whenever I access Google Docs and some websites. My system datetime is correct and I checked "Automatically from the Internet". My BIOS is OK. I cleared everything (cache, cookie, private data) in Chrome and restarted OS but nothing changes. How to fix it? Firefox works but Chrome has that problem. The site's security certificate is not trusted! You attempted to reach docs.google.com, but the server presented a certificate issued by an entity that is not trusted by your computer's operating system. This may mean that the server has generated its own security credentials, which Google Chrome cannot rely on for identity information, or an attacker may be trying to intercept your communications. You cannot proceed because the website operator has requested heightened security for this domain.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Advanced Security Options is Blank

    - by mak4pi
    I just installed Oracle DB 10gR2 with Oracle Advanced Security, but cannot see the algorithms. [user@db-1] adapters Installed Oracle Net transport protocols are: IPC BEQ TCP/IP SSL RAW Installed Oracle Net naming methods are: Local Naming (tnsnames.ora) Oracle Directory Naming Oracle Host Naming Oracle Names Server Naming Installed Oracle Advanced Security options are: Where are all the algorithms for Oracle Advanced Security options please? I checked the $ORACLE_HOME/bin/adapters file and it's looking for naea256i, naemd5i, etc. in the naetab.so file, but none of these are listed in the naetab.so file. What's wrong with the naetab.so file? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why is it good to have website content files on a separate drive other than system (OS) drive?

    - by Jeffrey
    I am wondering what benefits will give me to move all website content files from the default inetpub directory (C:) to something like D:\wwwroot. By default IIS creates separate application pool for each website and I am using the built-in user and group (IURS) as the authentication method. I’ve made sure each site directory has the appropriate permission settings so I am not sure what benefits I will gain. Some of the environment settings are as below: VMWare Windows 2008 R2 64 IIS 7.5 C:\inetpub\site1 C:\inetpub\site2 Also as this article (moving the iis7 inetpub directory to a different drive) points out, not sure if it's worth the trouble to migrate files to a different drive: PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING: WINDOWS SERVICING EVENTS (I.E. HOTFIXES AND SERVICE PACKS) WOULD STILL REPLACE FILES IN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTORIES. THE LIKELIHOOD THAT FILES IN THE INETPUB DIRECTORIES HAVE TO BE REPLACED BY SERVICING IS LOW BUT FOR THIS REASON DELETING THE ORIGINAL DIRECTORIES IS NOT POSSIBLE.

    Read the article

  • Our company claims that the DLP system can even monitor the contents of HTTPS traffic, how is this possible?

    - by Ryan
    There is software installed on all client machines for DLP (Data Loss Prevention) and HIPAA compliance. Supposedly it can read HTTPS data clearly. I always thought that between the browser and the server, this was encrypted entirely. How can software sneak in and grab this data from the browser prior to it is encrypted or after it is decrypted? I am just curious as to how this could be possible. I would think that a browser wouldn't be considered very secure if this was possible.

    Read the article

  • View Security Server and Direct Connection

    - by Poort443
    I have a Security Server for my connections from the Internet. This works fine, accept when I enable "Direct Connection to the desktop". I found the following statement on this: If you bypass the secure connection, the client must establish a direct RDP communication to the desktop virtual machine over RDP (port 3389). Does this mean I have to open 3389 (RDP) to the Internet if I want to use Direct Connections? If I disable Direct Connections to get my Security Server working, I have to disable it on my Connection Server. It's my understanding that this means that if I reboot my Connection Server, all the View clients get disconnected. Is there a way I can disable "Direct Connections" for the Security Server, while enabling it for access from the LAN? Tia.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89  | Next Page >