Search Results

Search found 30556 results on 1223 pages for 'internet security'.

Page 87/1223 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • Routing Internet traffic over specific network interfaces [on hold]

    - by dipamchang
    I want to route my internet traffic over all my available connections (like LAN and Data card(3G)), based on conditions like, if a website is blocked over LAN, that traffic goes through Data Card (or other available internet connection). My ultimate motive is to integrate this feature in my web browser which I have already built using C# and .Net framework. I have found that one can add a route by using the following cmd command - route add DestinationIP mask subnet InterfaceGatewayIP but I am stuck as to how should it be implemented using C#?

    Read the article

  • Is SEO Important For Internet Success?

    Do you know what SEO is? Search engine optimization is a big part of the internet and without it you will be stuck roaming around wondering why you do not get as many visitors as you should. Make sure to come and find out what SEO means to your internet success.

    Read the article

  • Why does Spring Security Core RC4 require Grails 2.3?

    - by bksaville
    On the Spring Security Core plugin GitHub repo, I see that Graeme on May 21st upped the required version of Grails from 2.0 to 2.3 before the RC4 version was released a couple of months later, but I don't see any explanation for why. Was it mismatched dependencies, bug reports, etc? I run a 2.2.4 app, and I would prefer not to upgrade at this point just to get the latest RC of spring security core. I understand if the upgrade to 3.2.0.RELEASE of spring security caused mismatched dependencies with older versions of Grails since I've run into the same issues before. This originally came up due to a pull request on the spring security OAuth2 provider plugin that I maintain. The pull request upped the required version to 2.3, and the requester pointed me to the RC4 release of core as the reason. Thanks for the good works as always!

    Read the article

  • How to set up WebLogic 10.3.3. security for JAX_WS web services?

    - by Roman Kagan
    I have quite simple task to accomplish - I have to set up the security for web services ( basic authentication with hardcoded in WLES user id and password). I set the web.xml (see code fragment below) but I have tough time configuring WebLogic. I added IdentityAssertionAuthenticator Authentication Provider, set it as Required, modified DefaultAuthenticator as Optional and I went to deployed application's security and set the role to "thisIsUser" and at some point it worked, but not anymore (I redeployed war file and set web service security the same way but no avail.) I'd greatly appreciate for all your help. <security-constraint> <display-name>SecurityConstraint</display-name> <web-resource-collection> <web-resource-name>ABC</web-resource-name> <url-pattern>/ABC</url-pattern> </web-resource-collection> <auth-constraint> <role-name>thisIsUser</role-name> </auth-constraint> </security-constraint>

    Read the article

  • How can i add Active Directory security groups to a SharePoint site to control permissions, rather than individual user accounts

    - by user574811
    SharePoint does integrate active directory accounts, of course, but how about security groups? Have a few sites where I'm fairly confident access is going through an existing Active Directory (AD) security groups (i.e. only an AD security group has been granted permissions through the 'People and Groups') In another situation, where I created the AD group and granted it permissions to a site, the customers were not able to access immediately. Eventually had to fast-track it and add the individuals to the People and Groups to keep the project going, but hoping not to have to maintain it that way. Any specific requirements of the security group in AD? Universal, Global, or domain local? Is there any time delay between modifying group members in AD and having that take effect in SharePoint?

    Read the article

  • ubuntu/apt-get update said "Failed to Fetch http:// .... 404 not found"

    - by lindenb
    Hi all, I'm trying to run apt-get update on ubuntu 9.10 I've configured my proxy server and I can access the internet without any problem: /etc/apt# wget "http://www.google.com" Resolving (...) Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 292 [text/html] Saving to: `index.html' 100%[=================================================================================================================================>] 292 --.-K/s in 0s 2010-04-02 17:20:33 (29.8 MB/s) - `index.html' saved [292/292] But when I tried to use apt-get I got the following message: Ign http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic Release.gpg Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic Release.gpg Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Translation-en_US Ign http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic Release Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/multiverse Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates Release.gpg Ign http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/multiverse Translation-en_US Ign http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security Release.gpg Ign http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/multiverse Translation-en_US Ign http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Translation-en_US Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic Release Err http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/main Sources 404 Not Found Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates Release Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security Release Err http://archive.ubuntu.com karmic/restricted Sources 404 Not Found Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/multiverse Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/multiverse Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/multiverse Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/multiverse Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/multiverse Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/multiverse Packages Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Sources Ign http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Packages Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/multiverse Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/restricted Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/main Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic/universe Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/multiverse Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/restricted Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/main Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-updates/universe Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/multiverse Packages 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/restricted Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/main Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Sources 404 Not Found Err http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr karmic-security/universe Packages 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/karmic/main/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/karmic/restricted/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/restricted/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/multiverse/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/restricted/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/main/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/universe/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic/universe/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/restricted/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/multiverse/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/restricted/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/main/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/universe/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-updates/universe/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/restricted/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/multiverse/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/restricted/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/main/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/universe/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found W: Failed to fetch http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/dists/karmic-security/universe/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found apt.conf However I can 'see' those files with firefox. more /etc/apt/apt.conf Acquire::http::proxy "http://www.myproxyname.fr:3128"; I also tried with port '80', or with a blank /etc/apt/apt.conf source.list grep -v "#" /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/ karmic main restricted multiverse deb http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/ karmic-updates main restricted multiverse deb http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/ karmic universe deb http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/ karmic-updates universe deb http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/ karmic-security main restricted multiverse deb http://ubuntu.univ-nantes.fr/ubuntu/ karmic-security universe does anyone knows how to fix this ? Thanks Pierre

    Read the article

  • Problem Disabling Roaming Profiles on Grouped Users

    - by user43207
    I'm having some serious issues getting a group of users to stop using roaming profiles. As expected, I have roaming profiles enabled accross the domain. - But am doing GPO filtering, limiting the scope. I originally had it set to authenticated users for Roaming, but as the domain has branched out to multiple locations, I've limited the scope to only people that are near the central office. The GPO that I have linked filtered to a group I have created that include users that I don't want to have roaming profiles. This GPO is sitting at the root of the domain, with the "Forced" setting enabled, so it should override any setting below it. *On a side note, it is the ONLY GPO that I have set to "Forced" right now. I know the GPO is working, since I can see the original registy settings on a user that logged in under roaming profiles - and then that same user logging in after I made the Group Policy changes, the registry reflects a local profile. But unfortunately, even after making those settings - the user is given a roaming profile on one of the servers. A gpresult of that same user account (after the updated gpo) is listed in the code block below. You can see right at the top of that output, that it is infact dealing with a roaming profile. - And sure enough, on the server that's hosting the file share for roaming profiles, it creates a folder for the user once they log in. For testing purposes, I've deleted all copies of the user's profile, roaming and local. But the problem is still here. - So I'm aparently missing something in the group policy settings on a wider scale. Would anybody be able to point me in the direction of what I'm missing here? *gpresult /r*** Microsoft (R) Windows (R) Operating System Group Policy Result tool v2.0 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp. 1981-2001 Created On 5/15/2010 at 8:59:00 AM RSOP data for ** on * : Logging Mode OS Configuration: Member Workstation OS Version: 6.1.7600 Site Name: N/A Roaming Profile: \\profiles$** Local Profile: C:\Users*** Connected over a slow link?: No USER SETTINGS CN=*****,OU=*****,OU=*****,OU=*****,DC=*****,DC=***** Last time Group Policy was applied: 5/15/2010 at 8:52:02 AM Group Policy was applied from: *****.*****.com Group Policy slow link threshold: 500 kbps Domain Name: USSLINDSTROM Domain Type: Windows 2000 Applied Group Policy Objects ----------------------------- ForceLocalProfilesOnly InternetExplorer_***** GlobalPasswordPolicy The following GPOs were not applied because they were filtered out ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAgentFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) WSAdmin_***** Filtering: Denied (Security) NetlogonFirewallExceptions Filtering: Not Applied (Empty) NetLogon_***** Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleManualInstall Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleDaily_0300 Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleThu_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) AlternateSSLFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) SNMPFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleSun_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) SQLServerFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleTue_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleSat_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) DisableUAC Filtering: Denied (Security) ICMPFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) AdminShareFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) GPRefreshInterval Filtering: Denied (Security) ServeRAIDFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleFri_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) BlockFirewallExceptions(8400-8410) Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleWed_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) Local Group Policy Filtering: Not Applied (Empty) WSUS_***** Filtering: Denied (Security) LogonAsService_Idaho Filtering: Denied (Security) ReportServerFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) WSUSUpdateScheduleMon_0100 Filtering: Denied (Security) TFSFirewallExceptions Filtering: Denied (Security) Default Domain Policy Filtering: Not Applied (Empty) DenyServerSideRoamingProfiles Filtering: Denied (Security) ShareConnectionsRemainAlive Filtering: Denied (Security) The user is a part of the following security groups --------------------------------------------------- Domain Users Everyone BUILTIN\Users BUILTIN\Administrators NT AUTHORITY\INTERACTIVE CONSOLE LOGON NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users This Organization LOCAL *****Users VPNAccess_***** NetAdmin_***** SiteAdmin_***** WSAdmin_***** VPNAccess_***** LocalProfileOnly_***** NetworkAdmin_***** LocalProfileOnly_***** VPNAccess_***** NetAdmin_***** Domain Admins WSAdmin_***** WSAdmin_***** ***** ***** Schema Admins ***** Enterprise Admins Denied RODC Password Replication Group High Mandatory Level

    Read the article

  • How do I fix Internet Explorer / Firefox differences in Oracle JD Edwards Enterprise?

    - by CT
    Our company uses Oracle's JD Edwards Enterprise to do accounting work. We have an application consultant working for us to just deal JD Edwards but he is of non-technical background so only helps in application-specific support. All of our users should use IE 7 for JDE. About 15-20% of those users have problems which cause them to not be able to use IE 7. So those problematic users use firefox. For the most part firefox works fine but there are a few issues. Some menus / options within JDE that are present in IE 7 are not present in firefox. If I could get all of our users working under IE 7, all the firefox issues would be mute points. I have cross referenced Internet Options settings from a working IE 7 user and a non-working IE 7 user. All settings seem to be mirrored. I'm not sure how to go about continuing to troubleshoot this issue. So not only answers but just suggestive ideas for attack would be appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How configure 2 Lan cards in Windows 7/8 pc one to connect to Internet and other to Local Network

    - by Maharshi Raval
        I am about to install a dedicated VOIP server in our office. It is a 3CX pbx system on Windows 7/8 machine. The environment currently is a Windows SBS 2011 with 8 client machines. I want to use a dedicated broadband connection for the PBX (3CX) box, but the box also needs to be accessible in the local network as we will be using IP Phones and software IP phones. How configure two network cards on PBX box, so that one will be always used to connect to our SIP host over the Internet and the other will be connected to local network accessible from other client pc to connect to the pbx system. It must be noted that currently the Windows SBS 2011 acts as the Primary Domain Controller and gateway for all the client machines.     I cannot use a load balancer as it will conflict and cause issues within the current setup of our SBS2011 as it is also our Exchange Server. Any input is much appreciated. thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How configure 2 Lan cards in Windows 7/8 pc one to connect to Internet and other to Local Network

    - by Maharshi Raval
        I am about to install a dedicated VOIP server in our office. It is a 3CX pbx system on Windows 7/8 machine. The environment currently is a Windows SBS 2011 with 8 client machines. I want to use a dedicated broadband connection for the PBX (3CX) box, but the box also needs to be accessible in the local network as we will be using IP Phones and software IP phones. How configure two network cards on PBX box, so that one will be always used to connect to our SIP host over the Internet and the other will be connected to local network accessible from other client pc to connect to the pbx system. It must be noted that currently the Windows SBS 2011 acts as the Primary Domain Controller and gateway for all the client machines.     I cannot use a load balancer as it will conflict and cause issues within the current setup of our SBS2011 as it is also our Exchange Server. Any input is much appreciated. thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • I can't connect to internet via lan cable because 2032 battery died and my bios bios info is now empty [closed]

    - by Rand Om Guy
    I have a compaq CQ61-112SL from about 5 years now... the main battery is almost dead, doesn't keep more then 10 minutes. anyway my problem is that my motherboard battery didn't have any more energy left a few days ago and since then I can't access internet through lan cable but only via wifi. I need cable though. I saw that on my BIOS setup page there were a bunch of parameters missing like serial number, UUID, product number and stuff like that. Also when I start the notebook it prints something like : No serial found. or something like that. I don't really know if the reason why my lan cable doesn't work is the empty BIOS but i assume that's it. If it's not please enlighten me. Or anyway tell me how to update the serial number and product number to the real ones (instead of the 0000000000000 that is now in my bios). I downloaded HP DMI which should make it possible to set these variables on the BIOS but i'm on Windows 8 64bit and the executable file that I need to open for my laptop model says it can't run on 64 bit.

    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

  • What are the minimal iptables rules to surf the internet?

    - by alexx0186
    I am trying to set minimal rules to my Linux iptables rules file to just be able to surf the internet. Here what I did: * filter -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT COMMIT With just those rules, I can't surf the web. I noticed that when I put -A INPUT -j ACCEPT, it works but I don't understand why. So what Input/output port do I need to surf the internet? Thanks a lot. Regards EDIT: It still doesn't work and my rules as as follows: # generated by iptables-save filter :INPUT DROP [10:648] :FORWARD DROP [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [10:648] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPTED COMMIT

    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

  • Oracle Internet Directory 11.1.1.4 Certified with E-Business Suite

    - by Steven Chan
    Oracle E-Business Suite comes with native user authentication and management capabilities out-of-the-box. If you need more-advanced features, it's also possible to integrate it with Oracle Internet Directory and Oracle Single Sign-On or Oracle Access Manager, which allows you to link the E-Business Suite with third-party tools like Microsoft Active Directory, Windows Kerberos, and CA Netegrity SiteMinder.  For details about third-party integration architectures, see either of these article for EBS 11i and 12:In-Depth: Using Third-Party Identity Managers with E-Business Suite Release 12In-Depth: Using Third-Party Identity Managers with the E-Business Suite Release 11iOracle Internet Directory 11.1.1.4 is now certified with Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i, 12.0 and 12.1.  OID 11.1.1.4 is part of Oracle Fusion Middleware 11g Release 1 Version 11.1.1.4.0, also known as FMW 11g Patchset 3.  Certified E-Business Suite releases are:EBS Release 11i 11.5.10.2 + ATG RUP 7 and higherEBS Release 12.0.6 and higherEBS Release 12.1.1 and higherOracle Internet Directory 11.1.1.3.0 can be integrated with two single sign-on solutions for EBS environments:With Oracle Single Sign-On Server 10g (10.1.4.3.0) with an existing Oracle E-Business Suite system (Release 11i, 12.0.x or 12.1.1) With Oracle Access Manager 10g (10.1.4.3) with an existing Oracle E-Business Suite system (Release 11i or 12.1.x)

    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

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >