Search Results

Search found 20283 results on 812 pages for 'security context'.

Page 155/812 | < Previous Page | 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • securing unpatched websites

    - by neuron
    I have a client with a lot (read several thousand) websites in several old cms solutions that are no longer maintained. Now moving all of them to a maintained solution isn't really an option at this point. So I'm thinking about ways to secure the solutions without patching them. The solutions are mostly joomla 1.0/1.5 and wordpress. What I'm thinking is something like this: mod_suexec to lock everyone into their own home directory apparmor to deny any and all file writes by default. (exclude by default, include things like "images" directories). use htaccess to prevent anything in writable directories from being executed. (aka disable php_engine for images/ directory). mysql triggers to check the "users" tables to prevent adding new admins/superadmins. Does this make sense? Is it viable? Am I missing something obvious?

    Read the article

  • How to reliably keep an SSH tunnel open?

    - by Peltier
    I use an SSH tunnel from work to go around various idotic firewalls (it's ok with my boss :)). The problem is, after a while the ssh connection usually hangs, and the tunnel is broken. If I could at least monitor the tunnel automatically, I could restart the tunnel when it hangs, but I haven't even figured a way of doing that. Bonus points for the one who can tell me how to prevent my ssh connection from hanging, of course!

    Read the article

  • How to open a server port outside of an OpenVPN tunnel with a pf firewall on OSX (BSD)

    - by Timbo
    I have a Mac mini that I use as a media server running XBMC and serves media from my NAS to my stereo and TV (which has been color calibrated with a Spyder3Express, happy). The Mac runs OSX 10.8.2 and the internet connection is tunneled for general privacy over OpenVPN through Tunnelblick. I believe my anonymous VPN provider pushes "redirect_gateway" to OpenVPN/Tunnelblick because when on it effectively tunnels all non-LAN traffic in- and outbound. As an unwanted side effect that also opens the boxes server ports unprotected to the outside world and bypasses my firewall-router (Netgear SRX5308). I have run nmap from outside the LAN on the VPN IP and the server ports on the mini are clearly visible and connectable. The mini has the following ports open: ssh/22, ARD/5900 and 8080+9090 for the XBMC iOS client Constellation. I also have Synology NAS which apart from LAN file serving over AFP and WebDAV only serves up an OpenVPN/1194 and a PPTP/1732 server. When outside of the LAN I connect to this from my laptop over OpenVPN and over PPTP from my iPhone. I only want to connect through AFP/548 from the mini to the NAS. The border firewall (SRX5308) just works excellently, stable and with a very high throughput when streaming from various VOD services. My connection is a 100/10 with a close to theoretical max throughput. The ruleset is as follows Inbound: PPTP/1723 Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS/VPN server) from a restricted IP range >corresponding to possible cell provider range OpenVPN/1194 Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS/VPN server) from any Outbound: Default outbound policy: Allow Always OpenVPN/1194 TCP Allow always from 10.0.0.40 (NAS) to a.b.8.1-a.b.8.254 (VPN provider) OpenVPN/1194 UDP Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) to a.b.8.1-a.b.8.254 (VPN provider) Block always from NAS to any On the Mini I have disabled the OSX Application Level Firewall because it throws popups which don't remember my choices from one time to another and that's annoying on a media server. Instead I run Little Snitch which controls outgoing connections nicely on an application level. I have configured the excellent OSX builtin firewall pf (from BSD) as follows pf.conf (Apple App firewall tie-ins removed) (# replaced with % to avoid formatting errors) ### macro name for external interface. eth_if = "en0" vpn_if = "tap0" ### wifi_if = "en1" ### %usb_if = "en3" ext_if = $eth_if LAN="{10.0.0.0/24}" ### General housekeeping rules ### ### Drop all blocked packets silently set block-policy drop ### all incoming traffic on external interface is normalized and fragmented ### packets are reassembled. scrub in on $ext_if all fragment reassemble scrub in on $vpn_if all fragment reassemble scrub out all ### exercise antispoofing on the external interface, but add the local ### loopback interface as an exception, to prevent services utilizing the ### local loop from being blocked accidentally. ### set skip on lo0 antispoof for $ext_if inet antispoof for $vpn_if inet ### spoofing protection for all interfaces block in quick from urpf-failed ############################# block all ### Access to the mini server over ssh/22 and remote desktop/5900 from LAN/en0 only pass in on $eth_if proto tcp from $LAN to any port {22, 5900, 8080, 9090} ### Allow all udp and icmp also, necessary for Constellation. Could be tightened. pass on $eth_if proto {udp, icmp} from $LAN to any ### Allow AFP to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) pass out on $eth_if proto tcp from any to 10.0.0.40 port 548 ### Allow OpenVPN tunnel setup over unprotected link (en0) only to VPN provider IPs ### and port ranges pass on $eth_if proto tcp from any to a.b.8.0/24 port 1194:1201 ### OpenVPN Tunnel rules. All traffic allowed out, only in to ports 4100-4110 ### Outgoing pings ok pass in on $vpn_if proto {tcp, udp} from any to any port 4100:4110 pass out on $vpn_if proto {tcp, udp, icmp} from any to any So what are my goals and what does the above setup achieve? (until you tell me otherwise :) 1) Full LAN access to the above ports on the mini/media server (including through my own VPN server) 2) All internet traffic from the mini/media server is anonymized and tunneled over VPN 3) If OpenVPN/Tunnelblick on the mini drops the connection, nothing is leaked both because of pf and the router outgoing ruleset. It can't even do a DNS lookup through the router. So what do I have to hide with all this? Nothing much really, I just got carried away trying to stop port scans through the VPN tunnel :) In any case this setup works perfectly and it is very stable. The Problem at last! I want to run a minecraft server and I installed that on a separate user account on the mini server (user=mc) to keep things partitioned. I don't want this server accessible through the anonymized VPN tunnel because there are lots more port scans and hacking attempts through that than over my regular IP and I don't trust java in general. So I added the following pf rule on the mini: ### Allow Minecraft public through user mc pass in on $eth_if proto {tcp,udp} from any to any port 24983 user mc pass out on $eth_if proto {tcp, udp} from any to any user mc And these additions on the border firewall: Inbound: Allow always TCP/UDP from any to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) Outbound: Allow always TCP port 80 from 10.0.0.40 to any (needed for online account checkups) This works fine but only when the OpenVPN/Tunnelblick tunnel is down. When up no connection is possbile to the minecraft server from outside of LAN. inside LAN is always OK. Everything else functions as intended. I believe the redirect_gateway push is close to the root of the problem, but I want to keep that specific VPN provider because of the fantastic throughput, price and service. The Solution? How can I open up the minecraft server port outside of the tunnel so it's only available over en0 not the VPN tunnel? Should I a static route? But I don't know which IPs will be connecting...stumbles How secure would to estimate this setup to be and do you have other improvements to share? I've searched extensively in the last few days to no avail...If you've read this far I bet you know the answer :)

    Read the article

  • Retrieve malicious IP addresses from Apache logs and block them with iptables

    - by Gabriel Talavera
    Im trying to keep away some attackers that try to exploit XSS vulnerabilities from my website, I have found that most of the malicious attempts start with a classic "alert(document.cookie);\" test. The site is not vulnerable to XSS but I want to block the offending IP addresses before they found a real vulnerability, also, to keep the logs clean. My first thought is to have a script constantly checking in the Apache logs all IP addresses that start with that probe and send those addresses to an iptables drop rule. With something like this: cat /var/log/httpd/-access_log | grep "alert(document.cookie);" | awk '{print $1}' | uniq Why would be an effective way to send the output of that command to iptables? Thanks in advance for any input!

    Read the article

  • Updating snort rules automatically

    - by Matt Simmons
    I've been working on getting my snort machine up and running, and working through Snort IDS and IPS Toolkit. The authors suggest using Oinkmaster, but on that website, the last update was February of 2008. That seems sort of...odd. Maybe there haven't been any issues with oinkmaster in the past year and a half, but it made me wonder if there was another solution that I don't know about. If you use snort, do you automatically update your rules, and if so, how?

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 r2 Hardening [on hold]

    - by Natasha
    I have created windows server 2008 r2, running on VM, Where Running services in Server Manager 1) File services ( in Role) 2) Telnet Client ( Features) Windows Firewall Disabled and we are using TOMCAT APACHE WEB SERVER, here i want to harden the windows server, While running SCW by simply clicking with default NEXT, at last when i have clicked SAVE and RUN now in SCW, immediately my remote desktop services disabled. May I Know the things i want to add in Roles,features and finally want to harden windows ? and also what about audit policy and network settings in that ? Please help me out, Don't Ignore.

    Read the article

  • My server appears to have been hacked+ scanssh run by zabbix is it normal?

    - by Niro
    I'm running a few EC2/Scalr instances with zabbix monitoring. I received complaints about one of my servers port scanning other servers. the logs show it is accessing port 22 on consecutive IP addresses. I looked at the processes list and saw scanssh is running under the user Zabbix. My question is- Is scanssh part of zabbix? Is it suppesd to run? I have active autodiscovery on zabbix but it is looking at another IP addresses and definately not port 20. Is it possible that something in the config of zabbix agent is controlling it and not the settings on zabbix server? What can I do to find out if zabbix is somehow misbehaving or it is a hacker? Any advice is highly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • This operation has been cancelled due to restrictions in effect on this computer

    - by Dan
    I have this HUGELY irritating problem on Windows 7 (x64). Whenever I click on ANY link (that exists on a Word document, Excel or Outlook), I get an alert box with the message: This operation has been canceled due to restrictions in effect on this computer I have been scouring my settings and the Internet for a solution, but to no avail. What is the reason for this problem? It even happens when I click anchors in word document. That is, I can't even click on an entry in a Table of Contents to go to the appropriate page - I get this same error then. Is this a Windows 7 thing? Is there any way to turn this off?

    Read the article

  • Putting a Windows DC, Exchange in a DMZ

    - by blsub6
    I have one guy at my company telling me that I should put FF:TMG in between my main Internet-facing firewall (Cisco 5510) and put my Exchange server and DC on the internal network. I have another guy telling me that I should put the Exchange server and DC in a DMZ I don't particularly like the idea of having my mailboxes and DC's usernames/passwords in a DMZ and I think that Windows authentication would require me opening up so many ports between my DMZ and my internal network that it would be a moot point to have it out there anyways. What are some thoughts? How do you have it set up?

    Read the article

  • How secure is a subnet?

    - by HorusKol
    I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

    Read the article

  • Enabling Bitlocker in Native VHD Boot

    - by Trevor Sullivan
    I have a laptop with a single hard drive, using the GUID Partition Table (GPT) disk layout, with the following partitions: 120MB EFI System Partition 300MB Microsoft Reserved Partition (MSR) Remainder - GPT primary partition I have a Windows 8 Professional VHD configured as a native-boot VHD on the GPT primary partition. Can I use Bitlocker to encrypt my main partition, or to encrypt the VHD volume?

    Read the article

  • Setting the secure flag on cookies from Outlook Web Access

    - by Cheekysoft
    I'm running Exchange 2007 SP3 which is exposing outlook web access over only HTTPS. However the server delivers the sessionid cookie without the secure flag set. Even though I don't have port 80 open, this cookie is still vulnerable to being stolen over port 80 in the event of a man-in-the-middle attack. It also contributes to a PCI-DSS failure Does anyone know if I can persuade the web server/application to set the secure flag?

    Read the article

  • Windows XP: Consequences of setting a password for an account

    - by sleske
    I do not quite understand how Windows (specifically Windows XP) handles accounts with/without passwords. As far as I can see, on a fresh Windows XP install I have one default account which has admin rights does not have a password will auto-login (without password prompt) when the computer boots What happens if I set a password for this account? Will it still auto-login? Or will it always prompt for the PW? And generally, what consequences does it have if I set a password? I noted that Scheduled Tasks apparently cannot run under an account w/o password (creating a scheduled task will prompt for the account PW). Is there anything that will not work with a password set? Why is it even possible to have accounts without a password? I have some Unix/Linux background, but the concepts appear a little different under Windows.

    Read the article

  • How can I protect files on my NGiNX server?

    - by Jean-Nicolas Boulay Desjardins
    I am trying to protect files on my server (multiple types), with NGiNX and PHP. Basically I want people to have to sign in to the website if they want to access those static files like images. DropBox does it very well. Where by they force you to sign in to access any static files you put on there server. I though about using NGiNX Perl Module. And I would write a perl script that would check the session to see if the user was sign in to give them access to a static file. I would prefer using PHP because all my code is running under PHP and I am not sure how to check a session created by PHP with PERL. So basically my question is: How can I protect static files of any types that would need the user to have sign in and have a valid session created with a PHP script?

    Read the article

  • Configuring linux server firewall to allow access from a certain range of IP addresses

    - by eggman20
    Hi Guys, I'm new to linux server. I'm currently trying to get an Ubuntu 10.10 server up and running for the first time and I'm using Webmin for administration. I'm stuck on the setting up the firewall. What I need to do is to ONLY allow a range of IPs (e.g 128.171.21.1 - 128.171.21.100) to access the HTTP server and Webmin. I've seen a lot of tutorials but none of them fits what I needed. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Users in ubuntu; Cant figure it out

    - by Camran
    I am the only one who will have access to my website. Just installed my VPS and managed to get most stuff working. However, stuck on the "members" part. Currently, everything has been done as "root". I have read posts that I should create a user, because root isn't ideal. I have found thousand guides on how to create a user, but now what to do next. 1- Should I create a user with adduser username and then add the user to a group? But which group? 2- And will the user then be able to do everything as I have done logged on as "root"? 3- And somebody plz explain what "sudo" has to do with this? (if anything at all) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Recommended offline on-demand virus scanners

    - by ashh
    I have never run full anti-virus on my Windows XP systems. Instead I use various anti-malware tools to manually perform scans every few weeks. This approach, combined with Windows updates and general care about what web-sites I visit and what files I download has kept me 99% free of problems. The remaining 1% has occurred when I download files that I know may contain malware, but still decide the risk is worth it. When on 2 occasions in 10 years I did get caught doing this, I realised that being able to easily scan them would most likely have avoided getting infected. I don't need, or want, to run a "stay resident" anti-virus. Also, the online scanners such as Kaspersky etc limit uploads to small files, so these are not always useful. In summary I would like to simply be able to download a file and then manually initiate an on demand anti-virus scan, on the downloaded file only. I'm sure some/most Anti-Virus do both, however once again I don't really want to pay for or need the stay resident part. Any recommendations (commercial or free)? UPDATE: This is not an exact duplicate, nor a possible duplicate. I searched for and read other questions on anti-virus here at SuperUser and found none that answered my question. I am specifically asking about anti-virus scanners that run ON-DEMAND locally on the computer, not online scanners.

    Read the article

  • Apache httpOnly Cookie Information Disclosure CVE-2012-0053

    - by John
    A PCI compliance scan, on a CentOS LAMP server fails with this message. The server header and ServerSignature don't expose the Apache version. Apache httpOnly Cookie Information Disclosure CVE-2012-0053 Can this be resolved by simply specifying a custom ErrorDocument for the 400 Bad Request response? How is the scanner determining this vulnerability, is it invoking a bad request then looking to see if it's the default Apache 400 response?

    Read the article

  • Files deleted. What could have happened?

    - by jjfine
    I'm having a weird issue today. I was writing and testing out some simple cgi scripts this morning when I realized that I couldn't run them from one of the other computers on the (windows) network. So I had my network admin come in and take a look at what was going on. A few minutes later a co-worker came in and told me that a bunch of files he was working with as well as a bunch of others (all *.c files) on the network drive got deleted. He also noticed some strange apache_dump_500.log.txt files in the same directories where the files got deleted. The apache_dump_500.log.txt files all look like this: REDIRECT_HTTP_ACCEPT=*/*, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg REDIRECT_HTTP_USER_AGENT=Mozilla/1.1b2 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.05 9000/712) REDIRECT_PATH=.:/bin:/usr/local/bin:/etc REDIRECT_QUERY_STRING= REDIRECT_REMOTE_ADDR=<my computer's local ip> REDIRECT_REMOTE_HOST= REDIRECT_SERVER_NAME=<my computer's domain url> REDIRECT_SERVER_PORT= REDIRECT_SERVER_SOFTWARE= REDIRECT_URL=/cgi-bin/trojan.py I looked and I don't have any trojan.py in my cgi-bin folder. And all my apache logs are clean. Windows event logger seems to not have any traces of what happened either. My httpd.conf: http://pastebin.com/Yny2Yh8v I think we've got some kind of virus that added this trojan.py file to my cgi-bin, ran the script, and deleted the script and any traces from the logs. Is this a thing that happens? Any ideas whatsoever would be much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How secure is Remote Desktop from OSX to Windows Server 2003?

    - by dwhsix
    It's unclear to me exactly how secure Remote Desktop access from OSX to a Windows Server 2003 machine is. Is the communication encrypted by default? What level of encryption? Are there best practices for making this as secure as possible? I found http://www.mobydisk.com/techres/securing_remote_desktop.html but it's unclear how much of that is still relevant for current versions of RDP and Windows Server. I know I can tunnel RDP over ssh, but is that overkill or redundant? Thanks...

    Read the article

  • Can someone access my locally ran website even if I haven't specified any port forwarding?

    - by user701510
    I am using Xampp so I can test my web application directly on my own computer. I am concerned that someone can access my Xampp site since I am still connected to the internet. However, I have NOT explicitly enabled any port forwarding with respect to my Xampp site in my router firewall settings. Furthermore, I am using a dynamic ip address. Given the factors already stated, can someone from outside my local network still access my locally ran website?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162  | Next Page >