Search Results

Search found 21719 results on 869 pages for 'password security'.

Page 158/869 | < Previous Page | 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165  | Next Page >

• Windows 2003 R2 zip program blocking EXE file

  - by Harvey Kwok

  I have a Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition SP2 32-bit machine with all latest patch (as of 1-6-2011). It's a VM. I have a zip file, including a pdf file, a txt file and a exe file. If I copy the zip file onto the machine via a shared network drive, I can unzip all the files properly without problems. If I put the zip file on my web server and then I download it from there, I can only unzip the pdf file and txt file. The exe file is silently ignored. I searched the web and found somebody reporting similar issue on XP. If I right click on the zip file downloaded from the web server, at the bottom of the general page, it has a warning message saying that "This file came from antoher computer and might be blocked to help protect this computer" I understand that I can solve the problem by simply clicking the "Unblock" button and extract the file again. The things that bothering me is that why the warning message says "might be blocked"? I tried downloading the same zip file from the same web server on to my Windows 7 box with latest patch. It also shows the same warning message. However, even with the warning message, I can extract all the files properly without clicking the "Unblock" button. Is it a bug in Windows 2003 R2 SP1? Is there any security settings controlling this? How likely will the end user seeing this problem? I want to dig into this because I am worrying people downloading my zip file from my web server might see similar problems. The first thought coming to the user's mind will be the zip file is somehow corrupted. Honestly, I didn't know this "Unblock" feature in Windows before I run into this problem. EDIT I just tried it on another Windows 2003 R2 SP1 machine. The zip program doesn't block the EXE file on that machine either. Both Windows 2003 R2 SP1 machines are joining to the same forest.

  Read the article

• Client certificate based encryption

  - by Timo Willemsen

  I have a question about security of a file on a webserver. I have a file on my webserver which is used by my webapplication. It's a bitcoin wallet. Essentially it's a file with a private key in it used to decrypt messages. Now, my webapplication uses the file, because it's used to recieve transactions made trough the bitcoin network. I was looking into ways to secure it. Obviously if someone has root access to the server, he can do the same as my application. However, I need to find a way to encrypt it. I was thinking of something like this, but I have no clue if this is actually going to work: Client logs in with some sort of client certificate. Webapplication creates a wallet file. Webapplication encrypts file with client certificate. If the application wants to access the file, it has to use the client certificate. So basically, if someone gets root access to the site, they cannot access the wallet. Is this possible and does anyone know about an implementation of this? Are there any problems with this? And how safe would this be?

  Read the article

• Administrator view all mapped drives

  - by kskid19

  In my understanding of security, an administrator should be able to view all connections to and from a computer - just as they can view all processes/owner, network connections/owning process. However, Windows 8 seems to have disabled this. As administrator running an elevated in Win Vista+ when you run net use you get back all drives mapped, listed as unavailable. In Windows 8, the same command run from an elevated prompt returns "There are no entries in the list". The behavior is identical for powershell Get-WmiObject Win32_LogonSessionMappedDisk. A workaround for persistent mappings is to run Get-ChildItem Registry::HKU*\Network*. This does not include temporary mappings (in my particular example it was created through explorer on an administrator account and I did not select "Reconnect at sign-in") Is there a direct/simple way for Administrator to view connections of any user (short of a script that runs under each user context)? I have read Some Programs Cannot Access Network Locations When UAC Is Enabled but I do not think it particularly applies. ServerFault has an answer, but it still does not address non-persistent drives How can I tell what network drives users have mapped?

  Read the article

• Administrator view ALL mapped drives

  - by kskid19

  In my understanding of security, an administrator should be able to view all connections to and from a computer - just as they can view all processes/owner, network connections/owning process. However, Windows 8 seems to have disabled this. As administrator running an elevated in Win Vista+ when you run net use you get back all drives mapped, listed as unavailable. In Windows 8, the same command run from an elevated prompt returns "There are no entries in the list". The behavior is identical for powershell Get-WmiObject Win32_LogonSessionMappedDisk. A workaround for persistent mappings is to run Get-ChildItem Registry::HKU*\Network*. This does not include temporary mappings (in my particular example it was created through explorer on an administrator account and I did not select "Reconnect at sign-in") Is there a direct/simple way for Administrator to view connections of any user (short of a script that runs under each user context)? I have read Some Programs Cannot Access Network Locations When UAC Is Enabled but I do not think it particularly applies. I have seen this answer, but it still does not address non-persistent drives How can I tell what network drives users have mapped?

  Read the article

• How to add a privilege to an account in Windows?

  - by mark

  Given: A VM running Windows 2008 I am logged on there using my domain account (SHUNRANET\markk) I have added the "Create global objects" privilege to my domain account: The VM is restarted (I know logout/logon is enough, but I had to restart) I logon again using the same domain account. It seems still to have the privilege: I run some process and examine its Security properties using the Process Explorer. The account does not seem to have the privilege: This is not an idle curiousity. I have a real problem, that without this privilege the named pipe WCF binding works neither on Windows 2008 nor on Windows 7! Here is an interesting discussion on this matter - http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/wcf/thread/b71cfd4d-3e7f-4d76-9561-1e6070414620. Does anyone know how to make this work? Thanks. EDIT BTW, when I run the process elevated, everything is fine and the process explorer does display the privilege as expected: But I do not want to run it elevated. EDIT2 I equally welcome any solution. Be it configuration only or mixed with code. EDIT3 I have posted the same question on MSDN forums and they have redirected me to this page - http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;132958. I am yet to determine the relevance of it, but it looks promising. Notice also that it is a completely coding solution that they propose, so whoever moved this post to the ServerFault - please reinstate it back in the StackOverflow.

  Read the article

• Pros and Cons of a proxy/gateway server

  - by Curtis

  I'm working with a web app that uses two machines, a BSD server and a Windows 2000 server. When someone goes to our website, they are connected to the BSD server which, using Apache's proxy module, relays the requests & responses between them and the web server on the Windows server. The idea (designed and deployed about 9 years ago) was that it was more secure to have the BSD server as what outside people connected to than the Windows server running the web app. The BSD server is a bare bones install with all unnecessary services & applications removed. These servers are about to be replaced and the big question is, is a cut-down, barebones server necessary for security in this setup. From my research online I don’t see anyone else running a setup like this (I don't see anyone questioning it at least.) If they have a server between the user and the web app server(s), it is caching, compressing, and/or load balancing. Is there anything I’m overlooking by letting people connect directly from the internet ** to a Windows 2008 R2 server that’s running the web application? ** there’s a good hardware firewall between the internet with only minimal ports open Thank you.

  Read the article

• Possible DNS Injection and/or SSL hijack?

  - by Anthony

  So if I go to my site without indicating the protocol, I'm taken to: http://example.org/test.php But if I go directly to: https://example.org/test.php I get a 404 back. If I go to just: https://example.org I get a totally different site (a page about martial arts). I went to the site via https not very long ago (maybe a week?) and it was fine. This is a shared server, as I understand it, and I do not have shell access, so I'm limited to the site's CPanel to do any further investigations. But when I go to: example.org:2083 I'm taken to https://example.org:2083, which, if someone has taken over the SSL port, could mean they have taken over the 2083 part as well (at least in my paranoid mind). I'm made more nervous by the fact that the cpanel login page at the above address looks very new (better, really) compared to the last time I went to it over the weekend. It's possible that wires got crossed somewhere after a system update, but I don't want to put in my name username and password in case it's a phishing attempt. Is there any way to know for sure without shell access to know for sure if someone has taken over? If I look up the IP address for the host name, the IP address matches what I have on a phpinfo page I can get to over http. If I go to the IP address directly on port 2083, I get the same login mentioned above (new and and suspiciously nice). But the SSL cert shows as good when I go this route. So if that's the case (I know the IP is right, the cert checks out, and there isn't any DNS involved), is that enough to feel safe at that point of entry? Finally, if I can safely log in via the IP, does anyone have any advice on where to check first on CPanel for why the SSL port is forwarding to a site on karate? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How should I set up protection for the database against sql injection when all the php scripts are flawed?

  - by Tchalvak

  I've inherited a php web app that is very insecure, with a history of sql injection. I can't fix the scripts immediately, I rather need them to be running to have the website running, and there are too many php scripts to deal with from the php end first. I do, however, have full control over the server and the software on the server, including full control over the mysql database and it's users. Let's estimate it at something like 300 scripts overall, 40 semi-private scripts, and 20 private/secure scripts. So my question is how best to go about securing the data, with the implicit assumption that sql injection from the php side (e.g. somewhere in that list of 300 scripts) is inevitable? My first-draft plan is to create multiple tiers of different permissioned users in the mysql database. In this way I can secure the data & scripts in most need of securing first ("private/secure" category), then the second tier of database tables & scripts ("semi-private"), and finally deal with the security of the rest of the php app overall (with the result of finally securing the database tables that essentially deal with "public" information, e.g. stuff that even just viewing the homepage requires). So, 3 database users (public, semi-private, and secure), with a different user connecting for each of three different groups of scripts (the secure scripts, the semi-private scripts, and the public scripts). In this way, I can prevent all access to "secure" from "public" or from "semi-private", and to "semi-private" from "public". Are there other alternatives that I should look into? If a tiered access system is the way to go, what approaches are best?

  Read the article

• Is there a way to change the string format for an existing CSR "Country Code" field from UTF8 to Printable String?

  - by Mike B

  CentOS 5.x The short version: Is there a way to change the encoding format for an existing CSR "Country Code" field from UTF8 to Printable String? The long version: I've got a CSR generated from a product using standard java security providers (jsse/jce). Some of the information in the CSR uses UTF8 Strings (which I understand is the preferred encoding requirement as of December 31, 2003 - RF 3280). The certificate authority I'm submitting the CSR to explicitly requires the Country Code to be specified as a PrintableString. My CSR has it listed as a UTF8 string. I went back to the latest RFC - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt. It seems to conflict specifically on countryName. Here's where it gets a little messy... The countryName is part of the relative DN. The relative DN is defined to be of type DirectoryString, which is defined as a choice of teletexString, printableString, universalString, utf8String, or bmpString. It also more specifically defines countryName as being either alpha (upper bound 2 bytes) or numeric (upper bound 3 bytes). Furthermore, in the appendix, it refers to the X520countryName, which is limited to be only a PrintableString of size 2. So, it is clear why it doesn't work. It appears that the certificate authority and Sun/Java do not agree on their interpretation of the requirements for the countryName. Is there anything I can do to modify the CSR to be compatible with the CA?

  Read the article

• My URL has been identified as a phishing site

  - by user2118559

  Some months before ordered VPS at Ramnode According to tutorial (ZPanelCP on CentOS 6.4) http://www.zvps.co.uk/zpanelcp/centos-6 Installed CentOS and ZPanel) Today received email We are requesting that you secure and investigate the phishing website identified below. This URL has been identified as a phishing site and is currently involved in identity theft activities. URL: hxxp://111.11.111.111/www.connet-itunes.fr/iTunesConnect.woasp/ //IP is modified (not real) This site is being used to display false or spoofed content in an apparent effort to steal personal and financial information. This matter is URGENT. We believe that individuals are being falsely directed to this page and may be persuaded into divulging personal information to a criminal, if the content is not immediately disabled. Trying to understand. Some hacker hacked VPS, placed some file (?) with content that redirects to www.connet-itunes.fr/iTunesConnect.woasp? Then questions 1) how can I find the file? Where it may be located? url is URL: hxxp://111.11.111.111/ IP address, not domain name 2) What to do to protect VPS (with CentOS)? Any tutorial? Where may be security problem? I mean may be someone faced something similar....

  Read the article

• Multiple *NIX Accounts with Identical UID

  - by Tim

  I am curious whether there is a standard expected behavior and whether it is considered bad practice when creating more than one account on Linux/Unix that have the same UID. I've done some testing on RHEL5 with this and it behaved as I expected, but I don't know if I'm tempting fate using this trick. As an example, let's say I have two accounts with the same IDs: a1:$1$4zIl1:5000:5000::/home/a1:/bin/bash a2:$1$bmh92:5000:5000::/home/a2:/bin/bash What this means is: I can log in to each account using its own password. Files I create will have the same UID. Tools such as "ls -l" will list the UID as the first entry in the file (a1 in this case). I avoid any permissions or ownership problems between the two accounts because they are really the same user. I get login auditing for each account, so I have better granularity into tracking what is happening on the system. So my questions are: Is this ability designed or is it just the way it happens to work? Is this going to be consistent across *nix variants? Is this accepted practice? Are there unintended consequences to this practice? Note, the idea here is to use this for system accounts and not normal user accounts.

  Read the article

• Restrict SSH user to connection from one machine

  - by Jonathan

  During set-up of a home server (running Kubuntu 10.04), I created an admin user for performing administrative tasks that may require an unmounted home. This user has a home directory on the root partition of the box. The machine has an internet-facing SSH server, and I have restricted the set of users that can connect via SSH, but I would like to restrict it further by making admin only accessible from my laptop (or perhaps only from the local 192.168.1.0/24 range). I currently have only an AllowGroups ssh-users with myself and admin as members of the ssh-users group. What I want is something that works like you may expect this setup to work (but it doesn't): $ groups jonathan ... ssh-users $ groups admin ... ssh-restricted-users $ cat /etc/ssh/sshd_config ... AllowGroups ssh-users [email protected].* ... Is there a way to do this? I have also tried this, but it did not work (admin could still log in remotely): AllowUsers [email protected].* * AllowGroups ssh-users with admin a member of ssh-users. I would also be fine with only allowing admin to log in with a key, and disallowing password logins, but I could find no general setting for sshd; there is a setting that requires root logins to use a key, but not for general users.

  Read the article

• VPN on a ubuntu server limited to certain ips

  - by Hultner

  I got an server running Ubuntu Server 9.10 and I need access to it and other parts of my network sometimes when not at home. There's two places I need to access the VPN from. One of the places to an static IP and the other got an dynamic but with DynDNS setup so I can always get the current IP if I want to. Now when it comes to servers people call me kinda paranoid but security is always my number one priority and I never like to allow access to the server outside the network therefor I have two things I have to have on this VPN. One it shouldn't be accessiable from any other IP then these 2 and two it has to use a very secure key so it will be virtually impossible to bruteforce even from the said IP´s. I have no experience what so ever in setting up VPNs, I have used SSH tunneling but never an actuall VPN. So what would be the best, most stable, safest and performance effiecent way to set this up on a Ubuntu Server? Is it possible or should I just set up some kind of SSH Tunnel instead? Thanks on beforehand for answers.

  Read the article

• Simple way to set up port knocking on Linux?

  - by Ace Paus

  There are well known benefits of Port Knocking utilities when utilized in combination with firewall IP table modification. Port Knocking is best used to provide an additional layer of security over other tools such as the OpenSSH server. I would like some help setting it up on a ubuntu server. I looked at some port knocking implementations here: PORTKNOCKING - A system for stealthy authentication across closed ports. IMPLEMENTATIONS http://www.portknocking.org/view/implementations fwknop looked good. I found an Android client here. And fwknop (both client and server) is in the ubuntu repos. Unfortunately, setting it up (on the server) looks difficult. I do not have iptables set up. My proficiency with iptables is limited (but I understand the basics). I'm looking for a series of simple steps to set it up. I only want to open the SSH port in response to a valid knock. Alternatively, I would consider other port knocking implementations, if they are much simpler to set up and the desired Linux and Android clients are available.

  Read the article

• saving and searching encrypted mail

  - by student

  I often send and receive gpg-encrypted mail. At the moment I use thunderbird + enigmail (in linux) to do that. As far as I know there is no way in thunderbird to find all encrypted messages which bodies contain particular keywords. There also seems to be no option to save encrypted mails decrypted (so they would be searchable). However for me it is important to be able to search old encrypted mails. So my question is: Is there a way in linux to save incoming mails automatically decrypted in my inbox and save outgoing encrypted mail decrypted in the send folder? Both times adding a line to the body which remarks that the mail was encrypted. It could be another email client for linux that could to that or perhaps a solution using procmail or maildrop. For a procmail solution I guess there could be some problems with encoding (perhaps one have to use emil?) the solution should work well with german special characters in subject and body. Note that the solution should work for multipart encrypted messages (including encrypted attachments) too i.e. with everything which could thunderbird + enigmail generate. Further note that I don't want a discussion about security holes. For me it's ok if messages are stored decrypted on my harddrive (which is encrypted as a whole anyway). In doubt for a first solution it would be ok to store my private key passphrase in cleartext on my harddrive, too. The point is that the mails are encrypted on the mailserver or more generally on their "way through the net".

  Read the article

• What kind of server attacks should i be aware of nowadays

  - by Saif Bechan

  I am recently running a web server, and there is a lot of information online, but it can all be a little confusing. I recently opened my logwatch logs and saw that i get attacked a lot by all sorts of bots. Now I am interested in a list with things I definitely should be aware of nowadays, and possible ways to prevent them. I have read stories about server crashed by floods, crashed by email, and all sorts of crazy stuff. Thing I already did: I have recently blocked all my ports, except for the http and email ports. I disabled IPv6, this was giving me a lot of named errors I have turned on spam DNS blackhole lists to fight spam - sbl.spamhaus.org; - zen.spamhaus.org; - b.barracudacentral.org; I installed and configured mod_security2 on apache There is no remote access possible to my databases That is all i did so far, further I am not aware of any other threats. I want to know if the following things have to be protects. Can I be flooded by emails. How can i prevent this Can there be a break in or flood of my databses Are there things like http floods or whatever Are there any other things i should know before i go public with my server I also want to know if there is some kind of checklist with must-have security protections. I know the OWASP list for writing good web applications, is there something for configuring a server.

  Read the article

• Understanding Authorized Access to your Google Account

  - by firebush

  I'm having trouble understanding what I'm am granting to sites when they have "Authorized Access to my Google Account." This is how I see what has authorized access: Log into gmail. Click on the link that is my name in the upper-right corner, and from the drop-down select Account. From the list of links to the left, select Security. Click on Edit next to Authorized applications and sites. Authenticate again. At the top of the page, I see a set of sites that have authorized access to my account in various ways. I'm having trouble finding out information about what is being told to me here. There's no "help" link anywhere on the page and my Google searches are coming up unproductive. From the looks of what I see there, Google has access to my Google calendar. I feel comfortable about that, I think. But other sites have authorization to "Sign in using your Google account". My question is, what exactly does that authorization mean? What do the sites that have authorization to "Sign in using my Google account" have the power to do? I hope that this simply means that they authorize using the same criterion that gmail does. I assume that this doesn't grant them the ability to access my email. Can someone please calm my paranoia by describing (or simply pointing me to a site that describes) what these terms mean exactly? Also, if you have any thoughts about the safety of this feature, please share. Thanks!

  Read the article

• I want to use OpenVPN to access the web and email from China. How?

  - by gaoshan88

  My question: How do I use my already existing OpenVPN setup to enable secure, remote web surfing and email checking from open wireless hotspots? Some long winded details: I am running Ubuntu and have OpenVPN up and working fine as a server. My client machine connects fine as well. However, that just gets me a secure connection to my home network. What I want is to be able to access my VPN server and surf the web or check email securely from anywhere with an open wireless connection. I am frequently in China and having secure, unblocked access would be a boon (especially since I like to work from tea houses and coffee shops and I've already had a password sniffed and hacked once). I already know how to tunnel over SSH via a SOCKS proxy using something like: ssh -ND 8887 -p 22 [email protected] but since I have OpenVPN I figure why not try it? So... what are the steps involved in making it so I can connect to my VPN and the surf and check mail to my hearts content (slowly to be sure but at least it wold be secure). Thx!

  Read the article

• Patch management on multiple systems

  - by Pierre

  I'm in charge of auditing the security configuration of an important farm of Unix servers. So far, I came up with a way to assess the basic configuration but not the installed updates. The very problem here is that I just can't trust the package management tools on those machine. Indeed some of them did not sync with the repository for a long time (So I can't do a "yum check-updates" on Redhat for example). Some of those servers are not even connected to the internet and use an company repository. Another problem is that I have multiple target systems: AIX, Debian, Centos/Redhat, etc... So the version could be different (AIX) and the tools available will be different. And, last but not least, I can't install anything on the target system. So I need to use a script to retrieve the information and either: process it directly or save the information to be able to process it later on a server (Which may happen to run a different distribution than the one on which the information have been retrieved). The best ideas I could come up with were: either retrieve the list of installed packages on the machine (dpkg -l for example on debian) and process it on a dedicated server (Directly parsing the "Packages" file of debian repositories). Still, the problem remains the same for AIX and Redhat... or use Nessus' scripts to assess vulnerability on the installed packages, but I find this a bit dirty. Does anyone know any better/efficient way of doing this ? P.S: I already took time to review some answers to similar problems. Unfortunately Chef, puppet, ... don't meet the requirements I have to meet. Edit: Long story short. I need to have the list of missing updates on a Unix system just like MBSA on Windows. I'm not authorized to install anything on this system as it's not mine. All I have are scripts languages. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Isolating a computer in the network

  - by Karma Soone

  I've got a small network and want to isolate one of the computers from the whole network. My Network: <----> Trusted PC 1 ADSL Router --> Netgear dg834g <----> Trusted PC 2 <----> Untrusted PC I want to isolate this untrusted PC in the network. That means the network should be secure against : * ARP Poisoning * Sniffing * Untrusted PC should not see / reach any other computers within the network but can go out the internet. Static DHCP and switch usage solves the problem of sniffing/ARP poisoning. I can enable IPSec between computers but the real problem is sniffing the traffic between the router and one of the trusted computers. Against getting a new IP address (second IP address from the same computer) I need a firewall with port security (I think) or I don't think my ADSL router supports that. To summarise I'm looking for a hardware firewall/router which can isolate one port from the rest of the network. Could you recommend such a hardware or can I easily accomplish that with my current network?

  Read the article

• Windows 7 hangs with 100% disk activity but only when online

  - by jeremy

  I have the same problem as seemingly many other people here, and I think we might all be experiencing the same issue: a compatibility issue in Windows 7 between hard drive and network controller or drivers. I've tried firmware updates of my entire board, wiping my drive and reinstalling from scratch. And yet the problem persists, which suggests it is an operating system error, as the hard drive checks out 100% physically. Additionally, the only time it does not occur is when in safe mode WITHOUT networking. With networking, there are spikes in disc access every so often and a huge flow of processes accessing the disc simultaneously that literally "stick" the disc, and physically jolting my computer unsticks it. Again, this has been tested for hours in a professional service environment, and without network access on, things are fine. As soon as there's network access available, the disc access occasionally cranks up to 100% and sticks everything. I'm using Microsoft Security Essentials, but this also happened under Norton, then McAfee. Again, this happened again after a complete wipe, so the likelihood of malware causing it seems low. I don't visit unsecure sites anyway, as far as I know. This, to me, narrows it down to a Windows 7 process that is somehow repeatedly corrupted, perhaps a corrupt .dll or driver, causing a conflict at the operating system level and temporary hard drive failure. I would encourage anyone who knows more about this stuff (which is probably most people!) to take a shot at this one, and I would encourage anyone else with a sticking hard drive in windows 7 64-bit to check on whether it occurs during safe mode without networking.

  Read the article

• Anonymous Login attemps from IPs all over Asia, how do I stop them from being able to do this?

  - by Ryan

  We had a successful hack attempt from Russia and one of our servers was used as a staging ground for further attacks, actually somehow they managed to get access to a Windows account called 'services'. I took that server offline as it was our SMTP server and no longer need it (3rd party system in place now). Now some of our other servers are having these ANONYMOUS LOGIN attempts in the Event Viewer that have IP addresses coming from China, Romania, Italy (I guess there's some Europe in there too)... I don't know what these people want but they just keep hitting the server. How can I prevent this? I don't want our servers compromised again, last time our host took our entire hardware node off of the network because it was attacking other systems, causing our services to go down which is really bad. How can I prevent these strange IP addresses from trying to access my servers? They are Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise 'containers' (virtual machines) running on a Parallels Virtuozzo HW node, if that makes a difference. I can configure each machine individually as if it were it's own server of course... UPDATE: New login attempts still happening, now these ones are tracing back to Ukraine... WTF.. here is the Event: Successful Network Logon: User Name: Domain: Logon ID: (0x0,0xB4FEB30C) Logon Type: 3 Logon Process: NtLmSsp Authentication Package: NTLM Workstation Name: REANIMAT-328817 Logon GUID: - Caller User Name: - Caller Domain: - Caller Logon ID: - Caller Process ID: - Transited Services: - Source Network Address: 94.179.189.117 Source Port: 0 For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp. Here is one from France I found too: Event Type: Success Audit Event Source: Security Event Category: Logon/Logoff Event ID: 540 Date: 1/20/2011 Time: 11:09:50 AM User: NT AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS LOGON Computer: QA Description: Successful Network Logon: User Name: Domain: Logon ID: (0x0,0xB35D8539) Logon Type: 3 Logon Process: NtLmSsp Authentication Package: NTLM Workstation Name: COMPUTER Logon GUID: - Caller User Name: - Caller Domain: - Caller Logon ID: - Caller Process ID: - Transited Services: - Source Network Address: 82.238.39.154 Source Port: 0 For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.

  Read the article

• How to secure an Internet-facing Elastic Search implementation in a shared hosting environment?

  - by casperOne

  (Originally asked on StackOverflow, and recommended that I move it here) I've been going over the documentation for Elastic Search and I'm a big fan and I'd like to use it to handle the search for my ASP.NET MVC app. That introduces a few interesting twists, however. If the ASP.NET MVC application was on a dedicated machine, it would be simple to spool up an instance of Elastic Search and use the TCP Transport to connect locally. However, I'm not on a dedicated machine for the ASP.NET MVC application, nor does it look like I'll move to one anytime soon. That leaves hosting Elastic Search on another machine (in the *NIX world) and I would probably go with shared hosting there. One of the biggest things lacking from Elastic Search, however, is the fact that it doesn't support HTTPS and basic authentication out of the box. If it did, then this question wouldn't exist; I'd simply host it somewhere and make sure to have an incredibly secure password and HTTPS enabled (possibly with a self-signed certificate). But that's not the case. That given, what is a good way to expose Elastic Search over the Internet in a secure way? Note, I'm looking for something that hopefully, will not require writing code to provide shims for the methods that I want (in other words, writing forwarders).

  Read the article

• Trouble getting started with the STEALTH monitoring package

  - by dlanced

  Is anyone here familiar with the Linux-based STEALTH package (for monitoring FS integrity of client systems)? I'm trying to get started with a very simple configuration, but I'm running into trouble (this is running under Ubuntu 14.04): Config line `USE BASE/root/stealth/10.0.0.79' invalid STEALTH (2.11.02) started at Fri, 30 May 2014 15:25:00 +0000 Program terminated due to non-zero exit value for -type f -exec /usr/bin/sha1sum {} \; (EOC Fri May 30 15:25:00 2014 127) Stealth is creating a binary tmp file in the Stealth server root and generating a "report" file in the start directory, but not much else. Regarding the "USE BASE...invalid" error, and just to be sure, I manually created the directories in /root, but it didn't help. And, by the way, I am running stealth with sudo. Everything seems to be configured correctly: I'm able to ssh into root@client from the stealth machine without a password Here's my "policy" file (I've removed the email directives just for simplicity): DEFINE SSHCMD /usr/bin/ssh [email protected] -T -q exec /bin/bash --noprofile DEFINE EXECSHA1 -xdev -perm +u+s,g+s ( -user root -or -group root ) \ -type f -exec /usr/bin/sha1sum {} \; USE BASE/root/stealth/10.0.0.79 USE SSH ${SSHCMD} USE DD /bin/dd USE DIFF /usr/bin/diff USE PIDFILE /var/run/stealth- USE REPORT report USE SH /bin/sh GET /usr/bin/sha1sum /root/tmp LABEL \nchecking the client's /usr/bin/find program CHECK LOG = remote/binfind /usr/bin/sha1sum /usr/bin/find LABEL \nsuid/sgid/executable files uid or gid root on the / partition CHECK LOG = remote/setuidgid /usr/bin/find / ${EXECSHA1} LABEL \nconfiguration files under /etc CHECK LOG = remote/etcfiles \ /usr/bin/find /etc -type f -not -perm /6111 \ -not -regex "/etc/(adjtime\|mtab)"\ -exec /usr/bin/sha1sum {} \; Any ideas? Thanks,

  Read the article

• SFTP access without hassle

  - by enobayram

  I'm trying to provide access to a local folder for someone over the internet. After googling around a bit, I've come to the conclusion that SFTP is the safest thing to expose through the firewall to the chaotic and evil world of the Internet. I'm planning to use the openssh-server to this end. Even though I trust that openssh will stop a random attacker, I'm not so sure about the security of my computer once someone is connected through ssh. In particular, even if I don't give that person's user account any privileges whatsoever, he might just be able to "su" to, say, "nobody". And since I was never worried about such things before, I might have given some moderate privileges to nobody at some point (not sudo rights surely!). I would of course value your comments about giving privileges to nobody in the first place, but that's not the point, really. My aim is to give SFTP access to someone in such a sandboxed state that I shouldn't need to worry about such things (at least not more so than I should have done before). Is this really possible? Am I speaking nonsense or worried in vain?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165  | Next Page >