Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'bastille'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• How do you make Bastille work and secure Ubuntu 12.04? It doesnt work for me `sudo bastille -x`

  - by BobMil

  I was able to install bastille from the normal repositories and then run the GUI. After going through the options and clicking OK to apply, it showed these errors. Do you know why Bastille wont work on Ubuntu 12.04? NOTE: Executing PSAD Specific Configuration NOTE: Executing File Permissions Specific Configuration NOTE: Executing Account Security Specific Configuration NOTE: Executing Boot Security Specific Configuration ERROR: Unable to open /etc/inittab as the swap file /etc/inittab.bastille already exists. Rename the swap file to allow Bastille to make desired file modifications. ERROR: open /etc/inittab.bastille failed... ERROR: open /etc/inittab failed. ERROR: Couldn't insert line to /etc/inittab, since open failed.NOTE: Executing Inetd Specific Configuration

  Read the article

• Will running CSF & Bastille cause any conflicts?

  - by MatW

  I'm taking my first steps into the world of un-managed servers, and have confused myself whilst reading through the 101 tutorials on server hardening that Google spews out! The most recent advice I have been given is to install both CSF and Bastille on my server (used to serve a consumer-facing ecommerce site and act as the business' email server), but my understanding was that both of these tools were an abstraction layer above netfilter / iptables. Will installing both packages cause any conflicts, or do they play well together?

  Read the article

• Configuring permissions with Bastille

  - by Lucio

  I was using Bastille to improve the security of OS and I found the next question there I don't know if I should answer for YES or NOT: Questions: Would you like to set more restrictive permissions on the administration utilities? Explanation: In general, the default file permissions set by most vendors are fairly secure. To make them more secure, though, you can remove non-root user access to some administrator functions. If you choose this option, you'll be changing the permissions on some common system administration utilities so that they're not readable or executable by users other than root. These utilities (which include linuxconf, fsck, ipconfig, runlevel and portmap) are ones that most users could never have a need to access. This option will increase your system security, but there's a chance it will inconvenience your users. My users: When I installed Ubuntu I had create a user (admin), then I was able to create another user (people) but I cannot change the permissions of this user. Questions: The user there I am using like admin it's not the root, right? The effects of this option will affect to the two users (admin & people) or just to people?

  Read the article

• What tool or scripts do you use to audit a Linux box?

  - by Sharjeel Sayed

  I use the following tools for my auditing needs A) System Auditing and Hardening (One time) 1) Linux Security Auditing Tool (Security centric,Text based output ) 2) Dmidecode ( Retrieves info from BIOS ) 3) Systeminfo ( Generates a nice html report) 4) Syssumm (Inactive since Oct 2000) 5) Rootkit Hunter (Does a basic config check in addition to rootkit checks) 6) CIS benchmarks 7) Bastille ( Interactive hardening and a security scoring tool) B) Automatic Auditing (as a cron job or a service) 1) Logwatch 2) Psad C) Remote Auditing 1) Nmap (Port scanning) 2) Nessus ( Remote Vulnerability check) D) Wikipedia 1) System profiler Any other tools/scripts which you can recommend?

  Read the article

• Permission Mystery - apt-get and other system utilities have 000 permissions

  - by emteh

  I'm trying to track down this strange behavoir for years now. Always after installing software-updates the permissions of a lot of system-tools are broken as you can see below. I am reasonable convinced that the machine is not owned by someone else. Regular security updates + grsecurity kernel + pax + daily rkhunter runs. Besides that there is no incentive for an attacker to fiddle in such obvious ways with the system. I installed bastille linux (http://bastille-linux.sourceforge.net/) und tried to deinstall it later, so the problems could be related to that. However I don't see how this can happen in a regular way after updates. System: Ubuntu 10.04, recently updated to Ubuntu 12.04 but the problem persists. Apt-Configuration in /etc/apt/ looks sane to me. But nevertheless - could here be the source of the trouble? DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs {"/usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true";}; DPkg::Post-Invoke { "if [ -x /usr/bin/debsums ]; then /usr/bin/debsums -- generate=nocheck -sp /var/cache/apt/archives; fi"; }; // Makes sure that rkhunter file properties database is updated // after each remove or install only APT_AUTOGEN is enabled DPkg::Post-Invoke { "if [ -x /usr/bin/rkhunter ] && grep -qiE '^APT_AUTOGEN=.? (true|yes)' /etc/default/rkhunter; then /usr/share/rkhunter/scripts/rkhupd.sh; fi" } DPkg::Post-Invoke {"if [ -d /var/lib/update-notifier ]; then touch /var/lib/update- notifier/dpkg-run-stamp; fi; if [ -e /var/lib/update-notifier/updates-available ]; then echo > /var/lib/update-notifier/updates-available; fi "; }; Where do these chmod 000 come from? I'm feeling really uneasy with this problem. root@besen:~# find /usr/bin/ -perm 0 -ls 14721496 196 ---------- 1 root root 192592 Oct 15 11:58 /usr/bin/apt-get 14721144 68 ---------- 1 root root 63848 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/bin/gpasswd root@besen:~# find /usr/sbin/ -perm 0 -ls 1727732 92 ---------- 1 root root 86984 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/usermod 1727727 64 ---------- 1 root root 57640 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/userdel 1727719 64 ---------- 1 root root 57680 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/newusers 1727718 40 ---------- 1 root root 38632 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/grpunconv 1727728 48 ---------- 1 root root 47088 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/groupadd 1727724 32 ---------- 1 root root 29584 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/pwunconv 19031620 84 ---------- 1 root root 81880 Jan 3 2012 /usr/sbin/edquota 14877113 48 ---------- 1 root root 46880 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/grpck 1727722 40 ---------- 1 root root 38632 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/pwck 1727730 96 ---------- 1 root root 91464 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/useradd 19031619 16 ---------- 1 root root 14600 Jan 3 2012 /usr/sbin/quotastats 1727720 44 ---------- 1 root root 42760 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/groupdel 1727733 36 ---------- 1 root root 34504 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/pwconv 19031621 80 ---------- 1 root root 77632 Jan 3 2012 /usr/sbin/rpc.rquotad 19030041 76 ---------- 1 root root 73600 Jan 3 2012 /usr/sbin/repquota 1727731 40 ---------- 1 root root 38624 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/grpconv 1727725 56 ---------- 1 root root 49472 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/vipw 1727723 64 ---------- 1 root root 57672 Sep 13 00:29 /usr/sbin/groupmod root@besen:~# find /sbin/ -perm 0 -ls 16760927 76 ---------- 1 root root 73464 Jan 3 2012 /sbin/quotaon Any tipps? I really can't pinpoint the problem in more detail. It happens after installing updates but I can't find no hooks in the dpkg/apt system.

  Read the article

• EC2 Configuration

  - by user123683

  I am trying to create a server structure for my EC2 account. The design I have chosen consists of 2 instances running in different availability zones, elastic load balancer, an auto-scaling group with cloudwatch monitoring configured and a security group defining rules for access to the instances. This setup is to support an online web application written in PHP. I am trying to decide what is a better policy: Store MySQL DB on a separate Instance Store MySQL DB on an attached EBS volume (from what i know auto-scaling will not replicate the attached EBS volume but will generate new instances from a chosen AMI - is this view correct?) Regards the AMI I plan to use a basic Amazon linux 64 bit AMI, and install bastille (maybe OSSEC) but I am looking to also use an encrypted file system. Are there any issues using an encrypted file system and communication between the DB and webapp i neeed to be aware of? Are there any comms issues using the encrypted filesystem on the instance housing the webapp I was going to launch a second instance or attach a second volume in the second availability zone to act as a standby for the database - I'm just looking for some suggestions about how to get the two DB's to talk - will this be a big task Regards updates for security is it best to create a recent snapshot and just relaunch and allow Amazon to install updates on launch or is the yum update mechanism a suitable alternative - is it better practice to relaunch instead of updates being installed which force a restart. I plan to create two AMI snapshots one for the app server and one for the DB each with the same security measures in place - is this a reasonable - I just figure it is a better policy than having additional applications that are unnecessary included in a AMI that I intend on using. My plan for backup is to create periodic snapshots of the webapp and DB instances (if I use an additional EBS volume instead of separate instances my understanding is that the EBS volume will persist in S3 storage in the event of an unexpected termination and I can create snapshots of the volume backup purposes). Thanks in advance for suggestions and advice. I am new to EC2 and I may have described unnecessary overkill but I want to try implement what can be considered a best practice solution so all advice is appreciated.

  Read the article

1