Search Results

Search found 24207 results on 969 pages for 'anonymous users'.

Page 91/969 | < Previous Page | 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98  | Next Page >

• What is the impact of Windows 8 with UEFI on normal users?

  - by Sam

  I am a normal man-in-the-street computer user and so do not really understand what this is about, but I want to. Can someone please explain to me if: The Windows 8/UEFI secure boot thing will make it impossible to run normal/legacy applications in Windows 8 (as they will be unsigned)? It will turn Windows into an Apple-like system where only Microsoft approved applications can be run? As I say, I'm a normal user, and that is the overall impression I have from reading all the blogs, etc about it. If, on the other hand, all it does is make sure the system is booting a signed OS, how does this prevent malware (which is what at least two Microsoft blogs that I read seemed to be saying), given that most malware is not part of the boot process? The only way I can see this making sense is if it is ensuring that all OS components are signed. Is that it? Like I say, I'm a mortal, so please don't get technical on me, but rather explain how it will affect me, the user.

  Read the article

• Options for remote desktop software for helping remote users?

  - by Nick G

  I need an easy way to jump on someone elses machine to help them solve a problem. It needs to be really easy for them to install (preferably doesn't actually require an "install" but just running an exe?). It must punch through any firewalls automatically using a relay server or P2P (so Remote Desktop itself is no use to me). I've found commercial products like MeetMeNow but they're really expensive. I want something that you can either buy a cheap pack of sessions or minutes, or preferably something free. I'm not in the business of commerical support and would only use it once every couple of months perhaps.

  Read the article

• Which group memberships are necessary for simple users in Ubuntu 12.04?

  - by Joey Carson

  I'm configuring Ubuntu 12.04 for my sister. I'd like to give her a system that she really can't screw up, but can still do normal things like install software. I don't want to just add her user to /etc/sudoers so that she can become root because she could possibly mess something up. I know that I should be able to get around this by just adding her to the necessary groups, but I'm not sure which ones those should be. Could anyone suggest them or point me in the direction of some kind of list that heavily used software in Ubuntu requires group membership?

  Read the article

• How can I track all emails sent from my users?

  - by schnapple

  My client runs a small business. This business has a small number of employees. For various reasons, my client would like to be able to have a copy of all of the emails sent from their employees BCC'd to them. The net effect here would be similar to the access they would have if they hosted their email through Exchange but the business is too small to make this a feasible option. They are currently hosted through GoDaddy. I have not investigated it myself personally but apparently GoDaddy can do something along these lines for all incoming email but not for outgoing email. Is there a way to set up email accounts for a particular domain to where a specified admin user could be copied on all outgoing email?

  Read the article

• How can I track all emails sent from my users?

  - by Schnapple

  My client runs a small business. This business has a small number of employees. For various reasons, my client would like to be able to have a copy of all of the emails sent from their employees BCC'd to them. The net effect here would be similar to the access they would have if they hosted their email through Exchange but the business is too small to make this a feasible option. They are currently hosted through GoDaddy. I have not investigated it myself personally but apparently GoDaddy can do something along these lines for all incoming email but not for outgoing email. Is there a way to set up email accounts for a particular domain to where a specified admin user could be copied on all outgoing email?

  Read the article

• Letting users make their own dns changes? Any software available to manage this tricky situation?

  - by Jaredk

  I currently waste a lot of time making dns changes for my organization. DDNS of course helps for workstations, but we still have a few thousand unique servers with still more applications needing cname records that DHCP/DDNS alone will not support, so someone needs to make updates, but I'd like to see sysadmins make their own dns updates for their machines. I'm currently working on extending our asset database to support this functionality, but I hold out hope that there are COTS solutions available.

  Read the article

• I can search users and site... but it will not search a blog that i use to view on my posted site fo

  - by Don

  I have always been able to search my blog where i post howtos for our company... However now i can only search for mysites or sites... when i click on a blog site that I created for Company Howtos i try to use the Search: This Site: "name of yhour site" click search i get the following No results matching your search were found. Check your spelling. Are the words in your query spelled correctly? Try using synonyms. Maybe what you're looking for uses slightly different words. Make your search more general. Try more general terms in place of specific ones. Try your search in a different scope. Different scopes can have different results. I have tried to do the following: 1) net stop osearch 2) net start osearch 3) iisreset /noforce ~ Please help! Don

  Read the article

• git : The remote end hung up unexpectedly - too many simultaneous users?

  - by Pritam Barhate

  I asked this first on StackOverflow and I was suggested that I should ask it here: We have a self hosted git server (Gitolite) on a VPS account (CPU:2.68GHz RAM:1824MB). This same VPS is also used to publish our underdevelopment web apps for client demos. (Very little traffic). so the main use of the server is as a Git Server Only. This git server is accessed by a team of 30-40 people for various projects. Our problem is that during the day when 6-7 people are trying to access the server (sometimes same repo) we get frequent error message: ssh: connect to host xxx.xxx.xx.xx port 22: Bad file number fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly After trying for 10-15 minutes it generally succeeds. During early mornings and late nights when there are only 1-2 people, git commands work with 100% success rate. Also I would like to note that if I access the other file hosted on the server through HTTP it works fine. I found a couple of questions on StackOverflow and on other sites regarding this. But most of the people point towards SSH key set up or conflicts between Msysgit and Cygns SSH. However I don't think this is the problem in our case as we get this behavior on Windows (using msysgit only) as well as Mac Machines. Also if it was SSH configuration issue then it shouldn't work at all. But in our case it works after 10-15 minutes. I think in our case it might be too many simultaneous connections to same server (or same repo) or something like that. Does there exists a setting or a conf file that needs to modified to solve this problem? Please help me solve this problem or point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance. Pritam.

  Read the article

• I want Lotus Domino to only send one email to users that are both recipients and members of a cc'ed lotus group.

  - by Marcus

  Lotus Domino 7 and now Lotus Domino 8.5 The scenario: A@mycompany writes an email to b@internet and cc's it to group@mycompany. A@mycompany is a member of group@mycompany. With the initial email Domino is intelligent enough to not send the email which a@mycompany just wrote to a@mycompany again. But when b@internet answers to all (a@mycompany + group@mycompany) then a@mycompany gets this email twice, because he is not only the author but also a member of group@mycompany. During the smtp session the email is sent once with the recipients set to a@mycompany and group@mycompany and a single esmtp id. So Domino should well be able to see that the mail should only be sent to a@mycompany once. Can I make Lotus Domino behave in this sane fashion?

  Read the article

• How to report a malicious site to Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. so that they will warn users

  - by Jayapal Chandran

  I completed a project a year ago. Now a few modification were needed. While trying to test the site, there was an index.html file with a malicious script which had an iframe to another site's jar file. Kaspersky antivirus blocked it. I browsed via ftp to find the file and I deleted it. I also disabled directory listing. Maybe the ftp details of the site owner would have been hacked. I want to report this site to Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and other antivirus providers. How do I do that? I hope kaspersky would have updated it in their database, but I still want to explicitly report this. Here is the popup kaspersky showed:

  Read the article

• How to push to github from a server account with multiple users?

  - by kirdie

  We have a web server which contains a web application stored as a github project. Now all of us can push from our local machines to github and then pull on the server but sometimes we want to make small changes and immediately see the effect so it would be great to be able to push at the server too. Now I created an ssh key for the server but I don't want to add the servers ssh key to my github account because then all github actions done from the server are counted to my account. Is it possible to add the ssh key to the github web application project without creating a new user for the server and what is the best practice for this situation? I also don't want to copy my private key to the server obviously.

  Read the article

• How do I circumvent Spotify's updater for my regular users in Windows?

  - by cros

  I run a Windows Vista machine where I have Spotify installed. My account is the only account with administrator rights on the machine, which means only I can update Spotify. This means that any other user on the machine won't be able to run Spotify if there is an update that I haven't installed. Is there any way to circumvent this? EDIT: I tried setting up a task in the Task Scheduler to start spotify.exe with administrative rights any time someone logged in, which I hoped would allow an update, but it didn't, so I'm open to new suggestions.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to change error messages for users connecting to network printers?

  - by eric.s

  We are cleaning up our print server (Win XP). To test that printers are no longer really there we have set up some tests. These tests have left us with 176 questionable printers. We have now set Print access to Everyone to Deny. Testing shows this gives the user a 5 Access is denied. message. We would like to change this message for the user, so when they call our workstudy's who answer the phone do not interpret this as a computer rights management issue and can route the call properly. Is it possible? Is this error number system wide, or just for printing errors? If it's not a system wide error where might the string for this error be?

  Read the article

• WIth more mobile users, my geo ip database is becoming useless.

  - by Marius

  Hello there, I've been enjoying the benefits of Geo IP lookup from database for some time. Its great. People are increasingly trying to access my site from a mobile phones or 3G modems, and their physical location seems to have little relation to whereabouts my IP lookup tells me they are. A user who is on the east cost of my country, may be looked up as being in the far inland, or up north. And one user may be reported as being in one location in one moment, and seconds later, be 100s of kilometers away. This is becoming a problem, and I need to find a solution. I am already updating my database monthly, but it has little effect. What can be done? Thank you for your time. Kind regardsMarius

  Read the article

• Can remote LogMeIn Hamachi users access our local LAN?

  - by Kev

  Unknown to me, one of the kids has installed LogMeIn Hamachi on his PC so that he can access and play on his pal's Minecraft server, and vice versa. One of the things I did was disable the Client for Microsoft Networks and File and Printer Sharing for Microsoft Networks on the Hamachi NIC in Windows 7's Network Connections. However, my lack of fu when it comes to these types of services is leaving me feeling a little uncomfortable about him using this. Is there anything I should be worried about here? For example, can his friends access our local LAN (which has a number of NAS boxes with unsecured shares) and get up to no good?

  Read the article

• Restrict Computer or Users from Internet but allow access to intranet and Windows Update / ePO?

  - by MoSiAc

  So this may be impossible but I've been asked to try and find something about it. So far nothing I have found is possible. I need to restrict specific machines or user accounts from regular Internet access but let them have access to the intranet portion of our network. I do not have Active Directory control, nor does anyone at my local workplace (corporate control in a different state). I have tried going through IPsec and doing this per local machine, but that system seems to have been removed from the images that are installed on these machines so that is out. So far the only other option I can think of is assigning the machines a specific ip address and removing their gateway access. This would probably work but the machines need to be able to receive updates that are being pushed to them through ePO and LanDesk. I would really like to do this on the user level because then if I need to do tech work to the machine and need internet access I can get to it but a "special" user could login and not be able to get into anything.

  Read the article

• If my Remote Desktop Connection Broker server goes down, can users still access my two Terminal Servers?

  - by Frank Owen

  I would like to setup the Remote Desktop Connection Broker to allow better load balancing of the two terminal servers we have as well as allowing the user to re-establish to the correct server if they get disconnected. My worry is, if I set this up and the server this service is running goes down, does the terminal server stop accepting connections or will they just lose the benefit of having RDCB turned on? I don't want to add another point of failure in this equation unless I have to.

  Read the article

• How do I limit the users a specific user can run commands in linux?

  - by user8571

  I have 2 user accounts, foo and bar I want to allow user foo to execute commands as root and any other user ie: sudo su root -c'./run-my-script' sudo su bar -c'./another-script' sudo su another -c'./yet-another-script I also want to allow user bar to execute commands as other user but only a subset and not root ie: sudo su bar -c'./run-my-script' but not sudo su root -c'./run-my-script' Is this possible ?

  Read the article

• What permissions do I need to move a folder?

  - by isme

  In the root of my drive there exists a folder called SourceControl that contains all the working copies of all my programming projects. I would like to move the folder to my user directory (\Users\Me), but something about the permissions on the folder forbids me. I don't remember how I created the folder. When I execute the move command: MOVE \SourceControl \Users\Me I receive the following error: Access is denied. I have resolved a similar problem in the past using the Takeown utility to assign ownership of the file to me, so I tried this command next: TAKEOWN /F \SourceControl It returns the following error: ERROR: The current logged on user does not have ownership privileges on the file (or folder) "C:\SourceControl". I've just learned about the Icacls utility, which can inspect and modify file permissions. I used this command to inspect the permissions on the folder: ICACLS \SourceControl It produced this list: \SourceControl BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(F) BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) BUILTIN\Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(RX) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(M) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(M) I think this means that normal user accounts, like mine, have permission only to read and execute (RX) here, while administrator accounts have full control (F). I used Icacls to confer full control of the directory to my user account with this command: ICACLS \SourceControl /grant:r Me:F The command produces this output: processed file: \SourceControl Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files Now inspection of the permissions produces this output: \SourceControl Domain\Me:(F) BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(F) BUILTIN\Administrators:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(F) NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(F) BUILTIN\Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(RX) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(M) NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users:(I)(OI)(CI)(IO)(M) But after this the move command still fails with the same error. Is it possible to move this folder without invoking administrator rights? If not, how should I do it as administrator?

  Read the article

• Looking for Free or Open Source Software to email new AD users after accounts have been created

  - by mrdenny

  I'm looking for a free or open source way to send emails to new employees when there account is created. I'm ok if its a powershell script, or something else which runs once per day. I'd like to be able to give is a couple of email files exported from outlook as there's a couple of emails I need all the new employees to get.

  Read the article

• Using a nat rule to translate 80/443 traffic to web server, but internal users cannot access it using external ip/domain name

  - by Josh

  I am using Cisco ASDM for ASA I have my internal network called soa. My outside interface is called outside. Let's say my outside IP given to me by my ISP isp is y.y.y.y I have a web server inside my network with a static ip of x.x.x.110. I have configured 2 static nat rules (one for http the other for https). Source is x.x.x.110. Interface is outside, service (http or https). Maybe I am doing this wrong, but when I run the packet tracer, I choose outside interface and for the source IP I used 8.8.8.8 and the destination ip is my outside IP address, y.y.y.y When I run that, it shows the packet traversing successfully, using 9 steps. For my other test, I switch to the soa interface, input an ip on that network, and leave the destination the same. This test comes up with 2 steps and then fails on my access list. When I see the rule that fails, it is my catch all which is source: any desitnation: any, service: ip action: deny. What rule do I need to make to allow my soa network access to go out and come back in by my external IP addess (using a domain name attached to that ip in my dns, of course)?

  Read the article

• How to stop domain users from installing any software?

  - by Chris

  Hi everyone, I was wondering which policies, etc I could setup to stop any installations from occurring in a server 2003 domain environment? I have 2003 RC2 and XP Pro clients. I guess the quick easy way is to make everyone guests, but this also blocks them from other things that they might need to do/access. I've seen a lot of ideas but they do not fully block everything. I know there probably isn't a fix all but would like to get as close as possible. Thank you all,

  Read the article

• Multi- authentication scenario for a public internet service using Kerberos

  - by StrangeLoop

  I have a public web server which has users coming from internet (via HTTPS) and from a corporate intranet. I wish to use Kerberos authentication for the intranet users so that they would be automatically logged in the web application without the need to provide any login/password (assuming they are already logged to the Windows domain). For the users coming from internet I want to provide traditional basic/form- based authentication. User/password data for these users would be stored internally in a database used by the application. Web application will be configured to use Kerberos authentication for users coming from specific intranet ip networks and basic/form- based authentication will be used for the rest of the users. From a security perspective, are there some risks involved in this kind of setup or is this a generally accepted solution? My understanding is that server doesn't need access to KDC (see Kerberos authentication, service host and access to KDC) and it can be completely isolated from AD and corporate intranet. The server has a keytab file stored locally that is used to decrypt tickets sent by the users coming from intranet. The tickets only contain username and domain of the incoming user. Server never sees the passwords of authenticated users. If the server would be hacked and the keytab file compromised, it would mean that attacker could forge tickets for any domain user and get access to the web application as any user. But typically this is the case anyway if hacker gains access to the keytab file on the local filesystem. The encryption key contained in the keytab file is based on the service account password in AD and is in hashed form, I guess it is very difficult to brute force this password if strong Kerberos encryption like AES-256-SHA1 is used. As the server has no network access to intranet, even the compromised service account couldn't be directly used for anything.

  Read the article

• Enterprise IPv6 Migration - End of proxypac ? Start of Point-to-Point ? +10K users

  - by Yohann

  Let's start with a diagram : We can see a "typical" IPv4 company network with : An Internet acces through a proxy An "Others companys" access through an dedicated proxy A direct access to local resources All computers have a proxy.pac file that indicates which proxy to use or whether to connect directly. Computers have access to just a local DNS (no name resolution for google.com for example.) By the way ... The company does not respect the RFC1918 internally and uses public addresses! (historical reason). The use of internet proxy explicitly makes it possible to not to have problem. What if we would migrate to IPv6? Step 1 : IPv6 internet access Internet access in IPv6 is easy. Indeed, just connect the proxy in Internet IPv4 and IPv6. There is nothing to do in internal network : Step 2 : IPv6 AND IPv4 in internal network And why not full IPv6 network directly? Because there is always the old servers that are not compatible IPv6 .. Option 1 : Same architecture as in IPv4 with a proxy pac This is probably the easiest solution. But is this the best? I think the transition to IPv6 is an opportunity not to bother with this proxy pac! Option 2 : New architecture with transparent proxy, whithout proxypac, recursive DNS Oh yes! In this new architecture, we have: Explicit Internet Proxy becomes a Transparent Internet Proxy Local DNS becomes a Normal Recursive DNS + authorative for local domains No proxypac Explicit Company Proxy becomes a Transparent Company Proxy Routing Internal Routers reditect IP of appx.ext.example.com to Company Proxy. The default gateway is the Transparent Internet proxy. Questions What do you think of this architecture IPv6? This architecture will reveal the IP addresses of our internal network but it is protected by firewalls. Is this a real big problem? Should we keep the explicit use of a proxy? -How would you make for this migration scenario? -And you, how do you do in your company? Thanks! Feel free to edit my post to make it better.

  Read the article

• Set primary group of file or directory on Samba share from Windows

  - by Hubert Kario

  Short version: I have such situation on a Samba share: $ ls -lha total 12K drwxr-xr-x 3 hka Domain Users 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 . drwxrwxrwt 19 root root 4.0K Jan 11 17:06 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 hka Domain Users 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 dir A -rw-r--r-- 1 hka Domain Users 0 Jan 11 17:07 file A How am I able to change this to following using only Windows SMB/CIFS client (using 3rd party applications is OK) $ ls -lha total 12K drwxr-xr-x 3 hka Domain Users 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 . drwxrwxrwt 19 root root 4.0K Jan 11 17:06 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 hka ntpoweruser 4.0K Jan 11 17:07 dir A -rw-r--r-- 1 hka ntpoweruser 0 Jan 11 17:07 file A Rationale and background info I'm using POSIX ACLs on Samba shares. Together with acl group control for Samba, it allows me to delegate management of permissions to different users based on group membership. Thing is, when I create a new file on a Samba share, I'm unable to set its primary group (the one that grants permission to change its permissions). It's being set to my primary group (Domain Users) or group set using force group option in smb.conf share definition. Removing all groups in windows except the one I want to become the new primary group doesn't work. I can change it using chgrp group folder/ as regular user though shell, but it's suboptimal (not all users are *nix users). Trying to set new owner to group from Windows file permission window makes the Samba to return permission denied with following log entry: [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349734, 3] smbd/nttrans.c:1899(call_nt_transact_set_security_desc) call_nt_transact_set_security_desc: file = projects/project A/New folder, sent 0x1 [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349774, 3] smbd/posix_acls.c:1208(unpack_nt_owners) unpack_nt_owners: unable to validate owner sid for S-1-5-21-4526631811-884521863-452487935-11025 [2012/01/05 21:13:03.349804, 3] smbd/error.c:80(error_packet_set) error packet at smbd/nttrans.c(1909) cmd=160 (SMBnttrans) NT_STATUS_INVALID_OWNER The SID is correct and belongs to group I specified in GUI.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98  | Next Page >