Search Results

Search found 46053 results on 1843 pages for 'thinly veiled question mark'.

Page 166/1843 | < Previous Page | 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173  | Next Page >

  • Are there any FIPS-140-2 certified solutions for Linux?

    - by Mark Renouf
    I'm not even 100% certain what this involves, but my current understanding is this: use of only approved cryptographic algorithms for network traffic (easy, we use SSL and lock down the algorithms to only the really strong ones). Some form of physical data protection, involving disk encryption and physical tamper evident packaging. Obviously we're on our own if we need a tamper-proof product. But what about software for encrpytion. My guess is just using LUKS (although secure) will not be certified because it's open source (gov't seems a bit biased towards proprietary solutions here). Guardian Edge was mentioned by someone, but that appears to be complete Windows-based. So we need something like it, certified FIPS-140 compliant we can use on Linux.

    Read the article

  • Are there website monitoring services that can monitor HTTP file download times?

    - by Mark
    The software company I work for would like to monitor how long it takes to download their installers (hosted in several locations and about 30-100mb each) from various countries around the world. I am aware of website monitoring services like Pingdom and Site24x7, and have contacted their customer services, but neither have the facility to monitor download times of such large files via HTTP. For various reasons, we are not able to rely on weblogs. Does anyone know of any third-party services that could help us? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why is IIS Anonymous authentication being used with administrative UNC drive access?

    - by Mark Lindell
    My account is local administrator on my machine. If I try to browse to a non-existent drive letter on my own box using a UNC path name: \mymachine\x$ my account would get locked out. I would also get the following warning (Event ID 100, Type “Warning”) 5 times under the “System” group in Event Viewer on my box: The server was unable to logon the Windows NT account 'ourdomain\myaccount' due to the following error: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password. I would also get the following warning 3 times: The server was unable to logon the Windows NT account 'ourdomain\myaccount' due to the following error: The referenced account is currently locked out and may not be logged on to. On the domain controller, Event ID 680 of type “Failure Audit” would appear 4 times under the “Security” group in Event Viewer: Logon attempt by: MICROSOFT_AUTHENTICATION_PACKAGE_V1_0 Logon account: myaccount Followed by Event ID 644: User Account Locked Out: Target Account Name: myaccount Target Account ID: OURDOMAIN\myaccount Caller Machine Name: MYMACHINE Caller User Name: STAN$ Caller Domain: OURDOMAIN Caller Logon ID: (0x0,0x3E7) Followed by another 4 errors having Event ID 680. Strangely, every time I tried to browse to the UNC path I would be prompted for a user name and password, the above errors would be written to the log, and my account would be locked out. When I hit “Cancel” in response to the user name/password prompt, the following message box would display: Windows cannot find \mymachine\x$. Check the spelling and try again, or try searching for the item by clicking the Start button and then clicking Search. I checked with others in the group using XP and they only got the above message box when browsing to a “bad” drive letter on their box. No one else was prompted for a user name/password and then locked out. So, every time I tried to browse to the “bad” drive letter, behind the scenes XP was trying to login 8 times using bad credentials (or, at least a bad password as the login was correct), causing my account to get locked out on the 4th try. Interestingly, If I tried browsing to a “good” drive such as “c$” it would work fine. As a test, I tried logging on to my box as a different login and browsing the “bad” UNC path. Strangely, my “ourdomain\myaccount” account was getting locked out – not the one I was logged in as! I was totally confused as to why the credentials for the other login were being passed. After much Googling, I found a link referring to some IIS settings I was vaguely familiar with from the past but could not see how they would affect this issue. It was related to the IIS directory security setting “Anonymous access and authentication control” located under: Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Computer Management/Services and Applications/Internet Information Services/Web Sites/Default Web Site/Properties/Directory Security/Anonymous access and authentication control/Edit/Password I found no indication while scouring the Internet that this property was related to my UNC problem. But, I did notice that this property was set to my domain user name and password. And, my password did age recently but I had not reset the password accordingly for this property. Sure enough, keying in the new password corrected the problem. I was no longer prompted for a user name/password when browsing the UNC path and the account lock-outs ceased. Now, a couple of questions: Why would an IIS setting affect the browsing of a UNC path on a local box? Why had I not encountered this problem before? My password has aged several times and I’ve never encountered this problem. And, I can’t remember the last time I updated the “Anonymous access” IIS password it’s been so long. I’ve run the script after a password reset before and never had my account locked-out due to the UNC problem (the script accesses UNC paths as a normal part of its processing). Windows Update did install “Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP (KB972260)” on my box on 7/29/2009. I wonder if this is responsible.

    Read the article

  • Hypervisor for mixed client and server OSes

    - by Mark
    I need to replace three old boxes I use for development, running Linux, Win Server and Win XP. Instead of purchasing three new boxes I am thinking of purchasing a single box and virtualizing the OSes. As it is for development, absolute performance is not a problem, but I want the Linux and Win servers to run continuously, while running Win 7 as if it is a regular PC. Therefore running Linux and Win Server on top off Win 7 is not an option. Is this a viable solution? Has anyone done this? What is performance like? I'd like to get decent graphics performance with Win 7, sufficient to run the occasional game. If so, I'm looking for suggestions or recommendations on which hypervisor or virtualization option to go for.

    Read the article

  • How can I block a specific type of DDoS attack?

    - by Mark
    My site is being attacked and is using up all the RAM. I looked at the Apache logs and every malicious hit seems to simply be a POST request on /, which is never required by a normal user. So I thought and wondered if there's any sort of solution or utility that will monitor my Apache logs and block every IP that performs a POST request on the site root. I'm not familiar with DDoS protection and searching didn't seem to give me an answer, so I came here. Thanks. Example logs: 103.3.221.202 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:03 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3" 122.72.80.100 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:03 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_4) AppleWebKit/536.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1132.47 Safari/536.11" 122.72.28.15 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)" 210.75.120.5 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/12.0" 122.96.59.103 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; fr-fr; Desire_A8181 Build/FRF91) App3leWebKit/53.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1" 122.96.59.103 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; fr-fr; Desire_A8181 Build/FRF91) App3leWebKit/53.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1" 122.72.124.3 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 122.72.112.148 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 190.39.210.26 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.0" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 210.213.245.230 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:04 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.0" 302 485 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)" 101.44.1.25 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3" 101.44.1.28 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 101.44.1.28 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:14 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 103.3.221.202 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:13 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 466 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3" 211.161.152.104 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)" 101.44.1.25 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/536.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1132.47 Safari/536.11" 101.44.1.25 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:11 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/536.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1132.47 Safari/536.11" 211.161.152.105 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6" 211.161.152.105 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; MRA 5.8 (build 4157); .NET CLR 2.0.50727; AskTbPTV/5.11.3.15590)" 211.161.152.105 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; MRA 5.8 (build 4157); .NET CLR 2.0.50727; AskTbPTV/5.11.3.15590)" 101.44.1.25 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/536.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1132.47 Safari/536.11" 101.44.1.25 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3" 211.161.152.108 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3" 101.44.1.28 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:13 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 211.161.152.106 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:11 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0.1" 103.3.221.202 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:13 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 466 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3" 101.44.1.28 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:11 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 211.161.152.105 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; MRA 5.8 (build 4157); .NET CLR 2.0.50727; AskTbPTV/5.11.3.15590)" 211.161.152.104 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)" 211.161.152.104 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)" 211.161.152.105 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6" 101.44.1.25 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:10 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/536.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1132.47 Safari/536.11" 122.72.124.2 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:17 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 122.72.124.2 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:11 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 122.72.124.2 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:17 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.1" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/13.0.1" 210.213.245.230 - - [30/Sep/2012:16:02:12 +0000] "POST / HTTP/1.0" 302 522 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)" iptables -L: Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination - bui@debian:~$ sudo iptables -I INPUT 1 -m string --algo bm --string 'Keep-Alive: 300' -j DROP iptables: No chain/target/match by that name. bui@debian:~$ sudo iptables -A INPUT -m string --algo bm --string 'Keep-Alive: 300' -j DROP iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.

    Read the article

  • Good reasons to keep 32-bit Microsoft Windows desktop OSes

    - by Mark Henderson
    Server software has been 64-bit only for a while now (Since Server 2008 R2 for Windows, even earlier for Exchange and Sharepoint) and even Ubuntu are pushing you away from 32-bit versions for their server OSes. But is there any good, quantifiable reason to keep a 32-bit desktop operating system maintained? We're preparing our Windows 8 images for the (unfortunate?) few that will be early adopters. The majority of our desktop computers have 4gb or less of RAM, but I would love to not have to bother supporting a 32-bit flavoured operating system any more. Any reason why I should?

    Read the article

  • XP boot timer=> set, but does nothing?

    - by mark
    My PC has XP Pro and the boot.ini file looks like this: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows [operating systems] C:\CMDCONS\BOOTSECT.DAT="Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" /cmdcons multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows="eXPee Pro" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect Up until about a week ago it would just time-out and boot normally. I haven't made any hardware changes at all. Now, when the system boots it just sits there and waits for me to hit -enter-. I've searched all over for explanations & possible causes, but found nothing which seems to relate. Anyone here have any idea what may have caused the timer to simply quit working like that ? (BTW, the system clock works just as it ever did and keeps time precisely.) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Windows 8: Clean Install Fails BEFORE country Screen

    - by Mark
    G'day, I've been trying to (clean) install Windows 8 on my PC now for over two weeks now, and it's really getting old. You can see here that I've outlined my issue to the Windows Technical Community, which has resulted in... absolutely no help at all. http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-windows_install/windows-8-clean-install-fails-before-country/64229d0a-0220-45a9-bdc6-c41062df8a75 Tl;dr? Yeah, me too. Basically, I've shrunk the HDD, it's working (I'm on that PC on XP). I've put both the x64 and the x86 DVD's, AND an another HDD with W8 installed on it from my test machine, and they ALL Fail to load. (I get the slanty windows logo, and after about 10 seconds BOOM. Sad face error screen.) I really don't want to have to remove the video card, or the unevenly/not partnered DIMM in the 2nd Memory channel - because the case is .. stupid, and in an awkward spot, but I'm running out of ideas! PS. I tried turning on ACHI tonight. All that resulted in was XP wigging out about new drivers & explorer.exe crashing. Fun times! :(

    Read the article

  • haproxy not passing X_FORWARD_FOR on HTTP POST

    - by Mark L
    Hello, I've setup HAProxy with the option forwardfor option so it'll pass on the user's IP to PHP via $_SERVER[ "HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR" ]. If the page request isn't a POST it's populated fine but if it is then it won't be populated. Any ideas where I've gone wrong? Thanks everyone! My whole HAProxy conf file for reference: global log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 notice #log loghost local0 info maxconn 4096 #chroot /usr/share/haproxy user haproxy group haproxy daemon #debug #quiet defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull retries 3 option redispatch maxconn 4096 contimeout 5000 clitimeout 50000 srvtimeout 50000 listen webfarm :80 mode http balance roundrobin option forwardfor server webA 192.168.240.4 weight 1 maxconn 2048 check server webB 192.168.240.3 weight 1 maxconn 2048 check listen smtp :25 mode tcp option tcplog balance roundrobin server smtp 192.168.240.4:25 check

    Read the article

  • Any good reason to keep 32-bit desktop OS's

    - by Mark Henderson
    Server software has been 64-bit only for a while now (Since Server 2008 R2 for Windows, even earlier for Exchange and Sharepoint) and even Ubuntu are pushing you away from 32-bit versions for their server OS's. But is there any good, quantifiable reason to keep a 32-bit desktop operating system maintained? We're preparing our Windows 8 images for the (unfortunate?) few that will be early adopters. The majority of our desktop computers have 4gb or less of RAM, but I would love to not have to bother supporting a 32-bit flavoured operating system any more. Any reason why I should?

    Read the article

  • Google Groups layout problem

    - by mark
    I have this strange problem when browsing Google Groups. The sidebar, the one displaying the various menu options, like Home, Discussions, Pages, is rendered on the left side of the page on top of the group discussions space. Below is a snapshot taken from FireFox (version 3.5.2). I have experienced the same problems with other browsers several times as well, but FireFox is my main browser and it is really broken there.

    Read the article

  • How to configure a Web.Config file to allow custom 404 handling while still displaying on-page 500 e

    - by Mark
    To customize 404 handling and based on the hosting company's suggestion, we are currently using the following web.config setup. However, we quickly realized that with this configuration, any page error (500 error) are also getting redirected to this custom error page. How can I modify this config file so we can continue to handle 404 with custom file while still able to view on-page error? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <configuration> <system.webServer> <httpErrors errorMode="DetailedLocalOnly" defaultPath="/Custom404.html" defaultResponseMode="ExecuteURL"> <remove statusCode="404" subStatusCode="-1" /> <error statusCode="404" prefixLanguageFilePath="" path="/Custom404.html" responseMode="ExecuteURL" /> </httpErrors> </system.webServer> <system.web> <customErrors mode="On"> <error statusCode="404" redirect="/Custom404.html" /> </customErrors> </system.web> </configuration>

    Read the article

  • How to redirect the output of the vmrun listProcessesInGuest command on windows?

    - by mark
    I run vmrun.exe with listProcessesInGuest on the command line and get the list of processes displayed in the console window. The exact command line is: "C:\VIX\vmrun.exe" -T vc -h "https://myserver/sdk" -u "mydomain\myuser" -p 123 -gu Administrator -gp 123 listProcessesInGuest "[Storage1] QA-W-7-SP1-64-0/QA-W-7-SP1-64-0.vmx" It works fine. Now I wish to redirect the output, however, neither 2> nor 1> work! The former has no effect - the output is still displayed in the console window, so I conclude it is send to stdout. But the latter does not work too - now nothing is displayed in the console window, but the redirection file is empty! It is created all right, but it has the zero size! Can someone explain what is going on?

    Read the article

  • How to get back to having OPEN IN SINGLE INSTANCE" as default for Excel 2007?

    - by rweeks
    In June Mikhail asked the same question but the answer was how to do the opposite (make multiple instances the default). I am trying to get to an answer to Mikhail's question which I rephrase as :- I have same problem with 64 byte Windows 7 and Excel 2007. Excel always used to open in a single instance n o matter how/where I opened the sheets. Because of this I could always copy and paste, etc with full formatting, formulas, etc. Suddenly, Excel switched to opening everything in fresh, separate, multiple instances and destroyed the basic cut and paste options. Wasn't the original question how to go back to everything in a single instance ? I have been searching for the answer to that question (rather than the opposite) Richard

    Read the article

  • Error ORA-01034: Oracle not available

    - by Mark Hardcastle
    I have an old Novell server which runs DocsOpen. I know very little about this system, basically we had a disk fault which halted the system. The server was rebooted and came up, I had to manually mount the DATA volume and then reboot again. All seems to be working but nobody can get in to DocsOpen, getting the error ORA-01034: Oracle not available.

    Read the article

  • Run as different user on a shortcut

    - by PhilPursglove
    How do I do this in Windows 7? On Windows XP I had the ability to mark a shortcut as being run by a different user, so that every time I ran it it would prompt me for a username/password. This let me have two shortcuts for things like SQL Server Management Studio, one for my normal account and one for my Domain Admins account which has access to production servers. I can get to the 'Run as different user' option with Shift+right-click, but I can't see an option anywhere that would let me mark the shortcut as doing this every time.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173  | Next Page >