Search Results

Search found 2118 results on 85 pages for 'trust metric'.

Page 1/85 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How To Clear An Alert - Part 2

  - by werner.de.gruyter

  There were some interesting comments and remarks on the original posting, so I decided to do a follow-up and address some of the issues that got raised... Handling Metric Errors First of all, there is a significant difference between an 'error' and an 'alert'. An 'alert' is the violation of a condition (a threshold) specified for a given metric. That means that the Agent is collecting and gathering the data for the metric, but there is a situation that requires the attention of an administrator. An 'error' on the other hand however, is a failure to collect metric data: The Agent is throwing the error because it cannot determine the value for the metric Whereas the 'alert' guarantees continuity of the metric data, an 'error' signals a big unknown. And the unknown aspect of all this is what makes an error a lot more serious than a regular alert: If you don't know what the current state of affairs is, there could be some serious issues brewing that nobody is aware of... The life-cycle of a Metric Error Clearing a metric error is pretty much the same workflow as a metric 'alert': The Agent signals the error after it failed to execute the metric The error is uploaded to the OMS/repository, where it becomes visible in the Console The error will remain active until the Agent is able to execute the metric successfully. Even though the metric is still getting scheduled and executed on a regular basis, the error will remain outstanding as long as the Agent is not capable of executing the metric correctly Knowing this, the way to fix the metric error should be obvious: Take the 'problem' away, and as soon as the metric is executed again (based on the frequency of the metric), the error will go away. The same tricks used to clear alerts can be used here too: Wait for the next scheduled execution. For those metrics that are executed regularly (like every 15 minutes or so), it's just a matter of waiting those minutes to see the updates. The 'Reevaluate Alert' button can be used to force a re-execution of the metric. In case a metric is executed once a day, this will be a better way to make sure that the underlying problem has been solved. And if it has been, the metric error will be removed, and the regular data points will be uploaded to the repository. And just in case you have to 'force' the issue a little: If you disable and re-enable a metric, it will get re-scheduled. And that means a new metric execution, and an update of the (hopefully) fixed problem. Database server-generated alerts and problem checkers There are various ways the Agent can collect metric data: Via a script or a SQL statement, reading a log file, getting a value from an SNMP OID or listening for SNMP traps or via the DBMS_SERVER_ALERTS mechanism of an Oracle database. For those alert which are generated by the database (like tablespace metrics for 10g and above databases), the Agent just 'waits' for the database to report any new findings. If the Agent has lost the current state of the server-side metrics (due to an incomplete recovery after a disaster, or after an improper use of the 'emctl clearstate' command), the Agent might be still aware of an alert that the database no longer has (or vice versa). The same goes for 'problem checker' alerts: Those metrics that only report data if there is a problem (like the 'invalid objects' metric) will also have a problem if the Agent state has been tampered with (again, the incomplete recovery, and after improper use of 'emctl clearstate' are the two main causes for this). The best way to deal with these kinds of mismatches, is to simple disable and re-enable the metric again: The disabling will clear the state of the metric, and the re-enabling will force a re-execution of the metric, so the new and updated results can get uploaded to the repository. Starting 10gR5, the Agent performs additional checks and verifications after each restart of the Agent and/or each state change of the database (shutdown/startup or failover in case of DataGuard) to catch these kinds of mismatches.

  Read the article

• What is New in ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security

  - by Xiaohong

  ASP.NET Code Access Security (CAS) is a feature that helps protect server applications on hosting multiple Web sites, ASP.NET lets you assign a configurable trust level that corresponds to a predefined set of permissions. ASP.NET has predefined ASP.NET Trust Levels and Policy Files that you can assign to applications, you also can assign custom trust level and policy files. Most web hosting companies run ASP.NET applications in Medium Trust to prevent that one website affect or harm another site etc. As .NET Framework's Code Access Security model has evolved, ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security also has introduced several changes and improvements. The main change in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS In ASP.NET v4.0 partial trust applications, application domain can have a default partial trust permission set as opposed to being full-trust, the permission set name is defined in the <trust /> new attribute permissionSetName that is used to initialize the application domain . By default, the PermissionSetName attribute value is "ASP.Net" which is the name of the permission set you can find in all predefined partial trust configuration files. <trust level="Something" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" /> This is ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model. For compatibility ASP.NET 4.0 also support legacy CAS model where application domain still has full trust permission set. You can specify new legacyCasModel attribute on the <trust /> element to indicate whether the legacy CAS model is enabled. By default legacyCasModel is false which means that new 4.0 CAS model is the default. <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="true|false" /> In .Net FX 4.0 Config directory, there are two set of predefined partial trust config files for each new CAS model and legacy CAS model, trust config files with name legacy.XYZ.config are for legacy CAS model: New CAS model: Legacy CAS model: web_hightrust.config legacy.web_hightrust.config web_mediumtrust.config legacy.web_mediumtrust.config web_lowtrust.config legacy.web_lowtrust.config web_minimaltrust.config legacy.web_minimaltrust.config   The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:    There also some benefits that comes with the new CAS model: You can lock down a machine by making all managed code no-execute by default (e.g. setting the MyComputer zone to have no managed execution code permissions), it should still be possible to configure ASP.NET web applications to run as either full-trust or partial trust. UNC share doesn’t require full trust with CASPOL at machine-level CAS policy. Side effect that comes with the new CAS model: processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated  in new CAS model since application domain always has partial trust permission set in new CAS model.   In ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model, even though you assign partial trust level to a application but the application domain still has full trust permission set. The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model (or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model) what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:     What $AppDirUrl$, $CodeGen$, $Gac$ represents: $AppDirUrl$ The application's virtual root directory. This allows permissions to be applied to code that is located in the application's bin directory. For example, if a virtual directory is mapped to C:\YourWebApp, then $AppDirUrl$ would equate to C:\YourWebApp. $CodeGen$ The directory that contains dynamically generated assemblies (for example, the result of .aspx page compiles). This can be configured on a per application basis and defaults to %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\{version}\Temporary ASP.NET Files. $CodeGen$ allows permissions to be applied to dynamically generated assemblies. $Gac$ Any assembly that is installed in the computer's global assembly cache (GAC). This allows permissions to be granted to strong named assemblies loaded from the GAC by the Web application.   The new customization of CAS Policy in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model 1. Define which named permission set in partial trust configuration files By default the permission set that will be assigned at application domain initialization time is the named "ASP.Net" permission set found in all predefined partial trust configuration files. However ASP.NET 4.0 allows you set PermissionSetName attribute to define which named permission set in a partial trust configuration file should be the one used to initialize an application domain. Example: add "ASP.Net_2" named permission set in partial trust configuration file: <PermissionSet class="NamedPermissionSet" version="1" Name="ASP.Net_2"> <IPermission class="FileIOPermission" version="1" Read="$AppDir$" PathDiscovery="$AppDir$" /> <IPermission class="ReflectionPermission" version="1" Flags ="RestrictedMemberAccess" /> <IPermission class="SecurityPermission " version="1" Flags ="Execution, ControlThread, ControlPrincipal, RemotingConfiguration" /></PermissionSet> Then you can use "ASP.Net_2" named permission set for the application domain permission set: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net_2" /> 2. Define a custom set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application By using the new fullTrustAssemblies element to configure a set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application, you can modify set of partial trust assemblies to full trust at the machine, site or application level. The configuration definition is shown below: <fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" version="1.1.2.3" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies> 3. Define <CodeGroup /> policy in partial trust configuration files ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model will retain the ability for developers to optionally define <CodeGroup />with membership conditions and assigned permission sets. The specific restriction in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model though will be that the results of evaluating custom policies can only result in one of two outcomes: either an assembly is granted full trust, or an assembly is granted the partial trust permission set currently associated with the running application domain. It will not be possible to use custom policies to create additional custom partial trust permission sets. When parsing the partial trust configuration file: Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='FullTrust'" will run at full trust. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='Nothing'" will result in a PolicyError being thrown from the CLR. This is acceptable since it provides administrators with a way to do a blanket-deny of managed code followed by selectively defining policy in a <CodeGroup /> that re-adds assemblies that would be allowed to run. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with other permissions sets will be interpreted to mean the assembly should run at the permission set of the appdomain. This means that even though syntactically a developer could define additional "flavors" of partial trust in an ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, those "flavors" will always be ignored. Example: defines full trust in <CodeGroup /> for my strong named assemblies in partial trust config files: <CodeGroup class="FirstMatchCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="Nothing"> <IMembershipCondition    class="AllMembershipCondition"    version="1" /> <CodeGroup    class="UnionCodeGroup"    version="1"    PermissionSetName="FullTrust"    Name="My_Strong_Name"    Description="This code group grants code signed full trust. "> <IMembershipCondition      class="StrongNameMembershipCondition" version="1"       PublicKeyBlob="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup   class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$AppDirUrl$/*" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$CodeGen$/*"   /> </CodeGroup></CodeGroup>   4. Customize CAS policy at runtime in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model allows to customize CAS policy at runtime by using custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver that overrides the ASP.NET code access security policy. Example: use custom host security policy resolver to resolve partial trust web application bin folder MyTrustedAssembly.dll to full trust at runtime: You can create a custom host security policy resolver and compile it to assembly MyCustomResolver.dll with strong name enabled and deploy in GAC: public class MyCustomResolver : HostSecurityPolicyResolver{ public override HostSecurityPolicyResults ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence) { IEnumerator hostEvidence = evidence.GetHostEnumerator(); while (hostEvidence.MoveNext()) { object hostEvidenceObject = hostEvidence.Current; if (hostEvidenceObject is System.Security.Policy.Url) { string assemblyName = hostEvidenceObject.ToString(); if (assemblyName.Contains(“MyTrustedAssembly.dll”) return HostSecurityPolicyResult.FullTrust; } } //default fall-through return HostSecurityPolicyResult.DefaultPolicy; }} Because ASP.NET accesses the custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver during application domain initialization, and a custom policy resolver requires full trust, you also can add a custom policy resolver in <fullTrustAssemblies /> , or deploy in the GAC. You also need configure a custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver instance by adding the HostSecurityPolicyResolverType attribute in the <trust /> element: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType="MyCustomResolver, MyCustomResolver" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" />   Note: If an assembly policy define in <CodeGroup/> and also in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType, hostSecurityPolicyResolverType will win. If an assembly added in <fullTrustAssemblies/> then the assembly has full trust no matter what policy in <CodeGroup/> or in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType.   Other changes in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS Use the new transparency model introduced in .Net Framework 4.0 Change in dynamically compiled code generated assemblies by ASP.NET: In new CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level2 to use Framework 4.0 security transparent rule that means partial trust code is treated as completely Transparent and it is more strict enforcement. In legacy CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level1 to use Framework 2.0 security transparent rule for compatibility. Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as security transparent level2 to switch to SecurityTransparent code by default unless SecurityCritical or SecuritySafeCritical attribute specified. You also can look at Security Changes in the .NET Framework 4 for more information about these security attributes. Support conditional APTCA If an assembly is marked with the Conditional APTCA attribute to allow partially trusted callers, and if you want to make the assembly both visible and accessible to partial-trust code in your web application, you must add a reference to the assembly in the partialTrustVisibleAssemblies section: <partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" />/partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as conditional APTCA to prevent use of ASP.NET APIs in partial trust environments such as Winforms or WPF UI controls hosted in Internet Explorer.   Differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model: Here list some differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model  : Asp.net partial trust appdomains have full trust permission Multiple different permission sets in a single appdomain are allowed in ASP.NET partial trust configuration files Code groups Machine CAS policy is honored processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is still honored    New configuration setting for legacy model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="true" ></trust><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model: ASP.NET will now run in homogeneous application domains. Only full trust or the app-domain's partial trust grant set, are allowable permission sets. It is no longer possible to define arbitrary permission sets that get assigned to different assemblies. If an application currently depends on fine-tuning the partial trust permission set using the ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, this will no longer be possible. processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated Dynamically compiled assemblies output by ASP.NET build providers will be updated to explicitly mark assemblies as transparent. ASP.NET partial trust grant sets will be independent from any enterprise, machine, or user CAS policy levels. A simplified model for locking down web servers that only allows trusted managed web applications to run. Machine policy used to always grant full-trust to managed code (based on membership conditions) can instead be configured using the new ASP.NET 4.0 full-trust assembly configuration section. The full-trust assembly configuration section requires explicitly listing each assembly as opposed to using membership conditions. Alternatively, the membership condition(s) used in machine policy can instead be re-defined in a <CodeGroup /> within ASP.NET's partial trust configuration file to grant full-trust.   New configuration setting for new model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType=".NET type string" ></trust><fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName=”MyAssembly” version=”1.0.0.0” publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>     Hope this post is helpful to better understand the ASP.Net 4.0 CAS. Xiaohong Tang ASP.NET QA Team

  Read the article

• Trust: A New Line of Business

  - by ruth.donohue

  What do you think are the key factors in building and maintaining your company's reputation... Innovation? Price? Surprisingly, according to the recent 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer, survey respondents in the US valued transparency of business practices as well as company trustworthiness as the two most important factors influencing corporate reputation. What is trust? It's the confidence in a company's ability to do what is right for all its stakeholders -- shareholders, customers, employees, and the broader society at large -- and not just shareholders. Trust is an increasingly important component to maintaining your company's reputation and brand, and Western countries have seen an increase in global trust. Global businesses headquartered in the United States in particular have seen an 18 point boost to 54 percent in global trust. Whether this uptick represents the start of a new trend or a mere blip in the barometer remains to be seen. The Edelman report notes that the increase is "tenuous" as people expect companies to return to "business as usual" after the economy rebounds. This warning underscores the need for companies to continue engaging in open and frequent communications and business practices with its stakeholders across multiple channels and view trust as a "new line of business" to cultivate.

  Read the article

• SUM of metric for normalized logical hierarchy

  - by Alex254

  Suppose there's a following table Table1, describing parent-child relationship and metric: Parent | Child | Metric (of a child) ------------------------------------ name0 | name1 | a name0 | name2 | b name1 | name3 | c name2 | name4 | d name2 | name5 | e name3 | name6 | f Characteristics: 1) Child always has 1 and only 1 parent; 2) Parent can have multiple children (name2 has name4 and name5 as children); 3) Number of levels in this "hierarchy" and number of children for any given parent are arbitrary and do not depend on each other; I need SQL request that will return result set with each name and a sum of metric of all its descendants down to the bottom level plus itself, so for this example table the result would be (look carefully at name1): Name | Metric ------------------ name1 | a + c + f name2 | b + d + e name3 | c + f name4 | d name5 | e name6 | f (name0 is irrelevant and can be excluded). It should be ANSI or Teradata SQL. I got as far as a recursive query that can return a SUM (metric) of all descendants of a given name: WITH RECURSIVE temp_table (Child, metric) AS ( SELECT root.Child, root.metric FROM table1 root WHERE root.Child = 'name1' UNION ALL SELECT indirect.Child, indirect.metric FROM temp_table direct, table1 indirect WHERE direct.Child = indirect.Parent) SELECT SUM(metric) FROM temp_table; Is there a way to turn this query into a function that takes name as an argument and returns this sum, so it can be called like this? SELECT Sum_Of_Descendants (Child) FROM Table1; Any suggestions about how to approach this from a different angle would be appreciated as well, because even if the above way is implementable, it will be of poor performance - there would be a lot of iterations of reading metrics (value f would be read 3 times in this example). Ideally, the query should read a metric of each name only once.

  Read the article

• Domain Trust 2008 to 2003

  - by nick3216

  I'm having trouble setting up the trust relationship between a Windows Server 2003 and a Windows Server 2008 AD. Domain a is Windows Server 2003 Forest functional level. Domain b is a Windows Server 2008 Forest functional level. I can set up the incoming side of the trust relationship on domain "a" so that it trusts domain "b". Try as I might on domain "b" I can't set up the outgoing side of the trust relationship to domain "a". The GUI interface gives an unhelpful 'The request is not supported'. I'm not sure netdom is being more or less helpful as it refers me to FilterSIDs netdom trust /add b /uo:b\admin /po:* /d:a /ud:a\admin /pd:* /oneside:trusting To improve the security of this external trust, security identifier (SID) filtering is enabled, however, if users have been migrated to the trusted domain and their SID histories have been preserved, you may choose to turn off this feature. For more information about SID filtering and how to turn it off, see the help for netdom trust /FilterSids or see Help and Support. The request is not supported. The command failed to complete succesfully. I say 'less helpful' because Windows Server 2008 doesn't support the /FilterSIDs option. How can we force creation of this trust? Edit: Just to clarify I've checked that the [Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options] "Network access: Allow anonymous SID/Name translation” is enabled on both sides of the trust as per http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/winserverDS/thread/cc61fc25-3569-4413-bbfd-92390eb31118

  Read the article

• Getting NLog Running in Partial Trust

  - by grant.barrington

  To get things working you will need to: Strong name sign the assembly Allow Partially Trusted Callers In the AssemblyInfo.cs file you will need to add the assembly attribute for “AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers” You should now be able to get NLog working as part of a partial trust installation, except that the File target won’t work. Other targets will still work (database for example)   Changing BaseFileAppender.cs to get file logging to work In the directory \Internal\FileAppenders there is a file called “BaseFileAppender.cs”. Make a change to the function call “TryCreateFileStream()”. The error occurs here: Change the function call to be: private FileStream TryCreateFileStream(bool allowConcurrentWrite) { FileShare fileShare = FileShare.Read; if (allowConcurrentWrite) fileShare = FileShare.ReadWrite; #if DOTNET_2_0 if (_createParameters.EnableFileDelete && PlatformDetector.GetCurrentRuntimeOS() != RuntimeOS.Windows) { fileShare |= FileShare.Delete; } #endif #if !NETCF try { if (PlatformDetector.IsCurrentOSCompatibleWith(RuntimeOS.WindowsNT) || PlatformDetector.IsCurrentOSCompatibleWith(RuntimeOS.Windows)) { return WindowsCreateFile(FileName, allowConcurrentWrite); } } catch (System.Security.SecurityException secExc) { InternalLogger.Error("Security Exception Caught in WindowsCreateFile. {0}", secExc.Message); } #endif return new FileStream(FileName, FileMode.Append, FileAccess.Write, fileShare, _createParameters.BufferSize); }   Basically we wrap the call in a try..catch. If we catch a SecurityException when trying to create the FileStream using WindowsCreateFile(), we just swallow the exception and use the native System.Io.FileStream instead.

  Read the article

• Trust Bluetooth 4.0 and Bluetooth Headset

  - by Seregwethrin

  Firstly, I'm writing this after 5 hours of nonstop struggle to make it work, so I searched into the deepest websites from Google, and tried many things. I have Trust Bluetooth 4.0 USB adapter (link) Samsung HM1500 Bluetooth Headset Windows 7 64-bit Desktop PC Facts Nothing wrong with the headset. (it works, tested on a phone and a laptop. Problem is all about bluetooth dongle and its driver.) Trust BT adapter can send and receive files even without any driver. I can pair successfully without any driver too. In Headset's Properties, Services tab, Handsfree and Headset services are checked. Problem When I pair with my BT headset, I cannot see it as a sound playback device. Also when I double-click the headset device icon in Bluetooth Devices, in laptop: it opens a connection window where I can connect and disconnect to that device - perfect! in desktop: it opens the properties window, even though Handsfree and Headset services are checked (I check them explicitly, in laptop they came as already checked) - Problem! Unsuccessful driver installations The driver on the Trust's website says "Error 1606 Could not access Network Location" on start, so it doesn't get installed. The driver on Broadcom (link) is being closed with Windows's that classic "has stopped working" error on validation step, so it doesn't get installed too. (Those tests made more than once) Successful installation In the Win64 folder of Trust's driver from their website, if I install through "BTW.msi", it doesn't give me Error 1606 and it gets installed. Then the problem: When I try to start bluetooth from start menu (or it gets started at Windows startup), an error popup says: "BtBalloon.dll is missing..." so it doesn't start. I found BBalloon.dll in the driver folder, I renamed it to BtBalloon.dll, moved into Windows/system32 and Windows/SysWOW64 folders, and it seems working. Or maybe it gets closed behind the scenes. The bluetooth icon is there with or without this driver since Windows has it. Bluetooth Peripheral Device First it didn't get installed from Windows Update. After, I showed the driver folder path in Device Manager and pressed "Explore in this location". Surprisingly, it's being found as "Handsfree" driver. Now even I uninstall the drivers, it still can see the Handsfree. But still, no playback device. Any ideas to guide me? I'm out of ideas.

  Read the article

• How can Hosting Providers allow .NET Full Trust?

  - by Alex

  I wondered how certain .NET hosting providers can safely grant full trust to their customers? Doesn't this open up everybody who is hosting with that company to potential safety issues? Or is there a way to safely restrict each customer, despite giving full trust, to "their" space without giving them the abiliy to bring down the system or spy on other customers?

  Read the article

• Runtime Exception when using Custom Healthmonitoring event in medium trust

  - by Elementenfresser

  Hi, I'm using custom healthmonitoring events in ASP.NET We recently moved to a new server with default High Trust Permissions. Literature says that healthmonitoring and custom events should work under Medium or higher trust (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb398933.aspx). Problem is it doesn't. In less than high trust I get a SecurityException saying The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy It works in Full trust or when I remove the inheritance of System.Web.Management.WebErrorEvent. Any suggestions anyone? Here is the super simple code behind with a custom event defined: public partial class Default : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { CallCustomEvent(); } catch (Exception ex) { Response.Write(ex.Message); throw ex; } } /// <summary> /// this metho is never called due to lacking permissions... /// </summary> private void CallCustomEvent() { try { //do something useful here } catch (Exception) { //code to instantiate the forbidden inheritance... WebBaseEvent.Raise(new CustomEvent()); } } } /// <summary> /// custom error inheriting WebErrorEvent which is not allowed in high trust? can't believe that... /// </summary> public class CustomEvent : WebErrorEvent { public CustomEvent() : base("test", HttpContext.Current.Request, 100001, new ApplicationException("dummy")) { } } and the Web Config excerpt for high trust: <system.web> <trust level="High" originUrl="" />

  Read the article

• Security Exception when using Custom ASP.NET Healthmonitoring event in medium trust

  - by Elementenfresser

  Hi, I'm using custom healthmonitoring events in ASP.NET We recently moved to a new server with default High Trust Permissions. Literature says that healthmonitoring and custom events should work under Medium or higher trust (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb398933.aspx). Problem is - it doesn't. In less than full trust I get a SecurityException saying The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy It works in Full trust or when I remove the inheritance of System.Web.Management.WebErrorEvent. Any suggestions anyone? Here is the super simple code behind with a custom event defined: public partial class Default : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { CallCustomEvent(); } catch (Exception ex) { Response.Write(ex.Message); throw ex; } } /// <summary> /// this metho is never called due to lacking permissions... /// </summary> private void CallCustomEvent() { try { //do something useful here } catch (Exception) { //code to instantiate the forbidden inheritance... WebBaseEvent.Raise(new CustomEvent()); } } } /// <summary> /// custom error inheriting WebErrorEvent which is not allowed in high trust? can't believe that... /// </summary> public class CustomEvent : WebErrorEvent { public CustomEvent() : base("test", HttpContext.Current.Request, 100001, new ApplicationException("dummy")) { } } and the Web Config excerpt for high trust: <system.web> <trust level="High" originUrl="" />

  Read the article

• Trust my work domain on a Dev Domain without a domain level password

  - by Vaccano

  I setup a virtual machine to host a dev version of TFS (to test plugins on). Getting a computer on my work domain requires large amounts of red tape and paperwork that I would rather not do. I created my own domain the the VM and I would like to trust all users from my work domain on that VM Domain. But when I tried to setup the trust I needed a password from my work domain (which I don't have). Am I trying to do something nefarious? I just want to be able to authenticate to my Test TFS (VM) Server as me (my login on my work domain). Is there a way to do that with out having to have a domain level password for my work domain? (My VM is a Windows Server 2008 R2 server)

  Read the article

• One-way forest trust between geographically distributed forests using Server 2008 R2

  - by bwerks

  Hi all, I'm planning out a joinder between two domains, as would take place with contracting companies. Forests A and B exist in distant sites, and there is to be a one-way forest trust so that domain users in Forest A can be authenticated on machines in Forest B. In order to facilitate this, each forest's domain controller must be able to contact each other in order to set up & confirm the trust, but my question is what underlying networking magic must take place beneath it. So far the prevailing approach has been to maintain a VPN connection between the two sites, but the technet documentation seems to indicate that DNS forwarding may be the way to go. Is this the case? Furthermore, if DNS will suffice, does that mean that there must be a server running DNS on boundary servers in each domain so that they can be reached from across the internet? How must they be configured? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Cross-Forest Trust

  - by cdalley

  I am looking at testing a cross-domain trust we can have two domain controllers (with different forests and domain names) setup so we can move everyone onto the new domain. We do NOT run exchange on site and we do not have any links to O365 to AD currently. Onto the problem: I have setup two DCs in a Virtual Machine: They are on the same network 192.168.0.* The Windows 2003 server: Name: OLDSRVR "Clone" of our current Domain Controller IP: 192.168.0.1 Domain: internal.test.com The Windows 2012 server: Name: ADCTEST01 Brand new domain setup from scratch separate to internal.test.com Domain: internal.test2.com IP: 192.168.0.2 OLDSRVR can only see ADCTEST if it has dynamic IP set. If I set a static IP it cannot see it. If I try using the dynamic IP and try to join it gets to the end then complains "??The trust relationship between this workstation and the primary domain failed" Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Make SQL Server Reporting Services use metric measurements

  - by marc_s

  I'm newly getting into creating and programming reports using SQL Server Reporting Services. One thing that bugs me right off the bat: I can't seem to find an easy way to tell the BIDS (Business Intelligence Dev Studio, a.k.a. Visual Studio) to use the metric system for measurements - you know - millimeters, centimeters etc., instead of inches and so on. I was trying to figure out whether that's a setting inside Visual Studio (and if so: where is it??), or whether this depends on the Reporting services instance we're going against (and again: if so, where the heck can I change that???). There must be a way to change this!! Except for the US, no one in the world is still measuring in inches..... c'mon - the world at large has long since adopted the metric system! Don't tell me Microsoft makes me go back into the dark ages.....

  Read the article

• Two-way Trust relationship between Samba 3 and AD 2008 R2

  - by Romain

  Did somebody already make a two-way trust relationship between Samba 3 and AD ? I've got Samba 3.5 domain (ES02) controller and AD 2008 R2 domain (ES01) controller. Trust domain seems to be ok: Trusted domains list: ES01 S-1-5-21-1816646249-803782145-3669927669 Trusting domains list: ES01 S-1-5-21-1816646249-803782145-3669927669 I can login AD domain workstation with a Samba user account and access to AD domain workstation shares from Samba workstation with Samba user account. BUT, when I try to access to Samba domain workstation shares from AD domain workstation with AD account (test), I've got this: [2012/12/16 23:00:26.146090, 5] auth/auth.c:268(check_ntlm_password) check_ntlm_password: winbind authentication for user [test] FAILED with error NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_USER [2012/12/16 23:00:26.146123, 2] auth/auth.c:314(check_ntlm_password) check_ntlm_password: Authentication for user [test] - [test] FAILED with error NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_USER When I try to access samba share with the Administrator account that I create on both side with same password, I've got this: [2012/12/16 22:57:22.701841, 1] rpc_server/srv_pipe_hnd.c:1602(serverinfo_to_SamInfo_base) _netr_LogonSamLogon: user ES01\Administrator has user sid S-1-5-21-1816646249-803782145-3669927669-500 but group sid S-1-5-21-3405883886-2425668597-4100599511-513. The conflicting domain portions are not supported for NETLOGON calls I don't know if winbind is working because of this: wbinfo -u root nobody smb3user administrator "wbinfo -u" should list all local and trusted users, no ? Any fresh idea would be appreciated, I've been reading all the Internet for 1 week... Regards,

  Read the article

• What is Medium Trust in Asp.net?

  - by Amitabh

  What is Medium Trust in Asp.net?

  Read the article

• Using fyiReporting in a medium trust host

  - by Ariel Popovsky

  Anyone knows if fyiReporting RDL reports require Full trust like RDLC or they can work in Medium trust?

  Read the article

• LDAP in medium trust

  - by eych

  I've have a solution with one website and several projects. The projects all have the AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers attribute and are strongly-named. The site works in full trust. However, after set the trust to medium, I get the System.Security.SecurityException: Request failed. error as soon as I browse to the site. In my projects, I have calls to LogOnUser, as well as many calls to variousSystem.DirectoryServices.AccountManagement methods. Can this site run with medium trust or do I have to have full trust for all the LDAP calls? As I mentioned, I've set the AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers attribute on all projects. Not sure what else to do. Also, I have no idea what/where the error is being generated. The event logs on the server have nothing in regards to this SecurityException. Is there any way to find out what the error location is so maybe I can attempt to rewrite some code? [running .NET 4.0 on Win2k8R2]

  Read the article

• Trust metrics and related algorithms

  - by Nick Gerakines

  I'm trying to learn more about trust metrics (including related algorithms) and how user voting, ranking and rating systems can be wired to stiffle abuse. I've read abstract articles and papers describing trust metrics but haven't seen any actual implementations. My goal is to create a system that allows users to vote on other users and the content of other users and with those votes and related meta-data, determine if those votes can be applied to a users level or popularity. Have you used or seen some sort of trust system within a social graph? How did it work and what were its areas of strength and weaknesses?

  Read the article

• Can GhostScript run in Medium Trust

  - by SkippyFire

  I am using GhostScript to generate some thumbnails of PDF pages in an ASP.NET application. I have it wrapped in this library called GhostScriptSharp that just uses DllImport to call methods in the GhostScript DLL. It looks like this wont work on a medium trust hosting environment, either because of the fact that it is calling unmanaged code, or that it looks like the library is creating files all over the place (outside my virtual directory). I ran Process Monitor and saw it trying to Read, QueryNameInformationFile, CreateFile and QueryStandardInformationFile in places like: C:\WINDOWS\system32\Halftone\Default or C:\gs\gs8.63\lib\Halftone\Default or C:\gs\font\Halftone\Default Any ideas about whether this is "fixable" to run in medium trust? If I can't use GhostScript, is there another free/open source library that WILL work in Medium trust?

  Read the article

• NHibernate 2.1.2 in medium trust.

  - by John

  I'm trying to configure nhibernate 2.1.2 to run in medium trust, without any luck. I have tried follwing the suggestions to run in medium trust and pre-generating the proxies. I then tried to remove all references to lazy loading setting the default-lazy="false" on all classes and bags. However this threw an exception asking me to configure the proxyfactory.factory_class None of these methds worked as they kept throwing generic security exceptions or throwing easying that libraries do not allow AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers. Am I using the wrong version of NHibernate if I want to run in medium trust? Is there a specific set of binaries, or source, which I should be using.

  Read the article

• Send Email on GMail SMTP under medium trust

  - by Midhat

  Hi I need to send an email from my app, which will be running under medium trust. My current email sending code that works fine under full trust throws SecurityException under medium trust [SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Net.Mail.SmtpPermission, System, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed.] Examining my machine.config and allied files reveal that my SMTP access is restricted to Connect. <SecurityClass Name="SmtpPermission" Description="System.Net.Mail.SmtpPermission, System, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"/> and <IPermission class="SmtpPermission" version="1" Access="Connect"/> According to MSDN, Connect allows request on port 25 only. But Gmail servers work on port 587. Any workarounds? suggestions?

  Read the article

• Nhibernate.Bytecode.Castle Trust Level on IIS

  - by jack london

  Trying to deploy the wcf service, depended on nhibernate. And getting the following exception On Reflection activator. [SecurityException: That assembly does not allow partially trusted callers.] System.Security.CodeAccessSecurityEngine.ThrowSecurityException(Assembly asm, PermissionSet granted, PermissionSet refused, RuntimeMethodHandle rmh, SecurityAction action, Object demand, IPermission permThatFailed) +150 System.RuntimeTypeHandle.CreateInstance(RuntimeType type, Boolean publicOnly, Boolean noCheck, Boolean& canBeCached, RuntimeMethodHandle& ctor, Boolean& bNeedSecurityCheck) +0 System.RuntimeType.CreateInstanceSlow(Boolean publicOnly, Boolean fillCache) +86 System.RuntimeType.CreateInstanceImpl(Boolean publicOnly, Boolean skipVisibilityChecks, Boolean fillCache) +230 System.Activator.CreateInstance(Type type, Boolean nonPublic) +67 NHibernate.Bytecode.ActivatorObjectsFactory.CreateInstance(Type type) +8 NHibernate.Driver.ReflectionBasedDriver.CreateConnection() +28 NHibernate.Connection.DriverConnectionProvider.GetConnection() +56 NHibernate.Tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaExport.Execute(Action`1 scriptAction, Boolean export, Boolean justDrop) +376 in IIS configuration service's trust level is Full-trust also application's web config's trust level is full. how could i make this service in working state?

  Read the article

• How can Hosting Providers allow .NET Full Trust?

  - by Alex

  I wondered how certain .NET hosting providers can safely grant full trust to their customers? Doesn't this open up everybody who is hosting with that company to potential safety issues? Or is there a way to safely restrict each customer, despite giving full trust, to "their" space without giving them the abiliy to bring down the system or spy on other customers?

  Read the article

• Using db4o with multiple application instances under medium trust

  - by Anders Fjeldstad

  I recently stumbled over the object database engine db4o which I think looks really interesting. I would like to use it in an ASP.NET MVC application that will be deployed to a shared hosting environment under medium trust. Because of the trust level, I'm restricted to using db4o in embedded/in-process mode. That in itself should be no problem, but the hosting provider also transparently runs each web application in multiple (load-balanced) server instances with shared storage, which I would say is normally a very nice feature for a $10/month hoster. However, since an instance of a db4o server with write access (whether in-process or networked) locks the underlying database file, having multiple instances of the application using the same file won't work (or at least I can't see how it would). So the question is: is it possible to use db4o in this specific environment? I have considered letting each application have its own database which is synchronized with a master database using replication (dRS), but that approach will most likely end up with very frequent bi-directional replication (read master changes at beginning of each request, write to master after each change) which I don't think will be very efficient. Summary of the web application/environment characteristics: Read-intensive (but not entirely read-only) Some delay (a few seconds) is acceptible between the time that a change is made and the time when the change shows up in all the application instances' data Must run in medium trust No guarantee that the load-balancer uses "sticky sessions" All suggestions are much appreciated!

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >