Search Results

Search found 25872 results on 1035 pages for 'document security'.

Page 173/1035 | < Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Has anyone had luck running 802.1x over ethernet using the stock Windows or other free supplicant?

    - by maxxpower
    I just wanted to see if anyone else has had luck implementing 802.1x over ethernet. So here's my basic setup. Switch sends out 3 eapol messages spaced out 5 seconds apart. if there's no response the machine gets put on a guest vlan with restricted access. If the machine is properly configured it will authenticate and be placed into a secure vlan. About 10% of my windows xp users are getting self assigned 169 addresses. I've used the Odyssey Access Client and it worked without a hitch. I'm using the setting to automatically use the users windows login to authenticate, but it's workign on 90% of the machines so I don't think that's the issue. Checking the logs on the dc it seems that the machines are trying to authenticate with computer credentials even though they are configured not to. I'm running Juniper switches with IAS for radius. I have radius configured for PEAP and MSvhapv2. Macs and linux boxes seem to have no issues authenticating. One last thing to add If I unplugging the ethernet cable and plug it back in usually resolves the issue, but I'd hardly call that acceptable for production. Kinda long winded and specific for a discussion, but just want to see if anyone else has had similar issues or experiences, or if anyone knows of a free XP supplicant that actually works with 802.1x over ethernet.

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    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

  • 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

  • Barring connections if VPN is down.

    - by Majid
    I have a VPN account and use it for sensitive communication. However the VPN connection sometimes is dropped while my main connection to the internet is still alive. The pages I visit through VPN are on HTTP (not secure) and have javascript code which pings the host every minute or so on a timer. So it happens sometimes that the VPN connection is dropped and yet js sends a request to the server (with the cookies). How could I restrict connections so they only happen if the VPN is live? Edit - Some required details were missing OS: Windows XP SP2 Browser (mostly used): Google Chrome Firewall: Windows default Sites to filter: not all traffic but all in a list of sites like abc.com, xyz.com

    Read the article

  • Does anyone know how to "tcpdump" traffic decrypted by Mallory MITM? [migrated]

    - by chriv
    I'm looking for some help in capturing network traffic that I can analyze in Wireshare (or other tools). The tool I'm using is mallory. If anyone is familiar with mallory, I could use some help. I've got it configured and running correctly, but I don't know how to get the output that I want. The setup is on my private network. I have a VM (running Ubuntu 12.04 - precise) with two NICs: eth0 is on my "real" network eth1 is only on my "fake" network, and is using dnsmasq (for DNS and DHCP for other devices on the "fake" network) Effectively eth0 is the "WAN" on my VM, and eth1 is the "LAN" on my VM. I've setup mallory and iptables to intercept, decrypt, encrypt and rewrite all traffic coming in on destination port 443 on eth1. On the device I want intercepted, I have imported the ca.cer that mallory generated as a trusted root certificate. I need to analyze some strange behavior in the HTTPS stream between the client and server, so that's why mallory is setup in between for this MITM. I would like to take the decrypted HTTPS traffic and dump it to either a logfile or a socket in a format compatible with tcpdump/wireshark (so I can collect it later and analyze it). Running tcpdump on eth1 is too soon (it's encrypted), and running tcpdump on eth2 is too late (it's been re-encrypted). Is there a way to make mallory "tcpdump" the decrypted traffic (in both directions)?

    Read the article

  • "Slave" user accounts in GNU/Linux

    - by Vi
    How to make one user account to be like root for some other user account, e.g. to be able to read, write, chmod all it's files, chown from this account to master and back, kill/ptrace all it's processes and to all thinks root can, but limited only to that particular slave account? Now I'm simulating this by allowing "master" user to "sudo -u slaveuser" and setting setfacl -dRm u:masteruser:rwx ~slaveuser. It is useful as I run most desktop programs in separate user accounts, but need to move files between them sometimes. If it requires some simple kernel patch it is OK.

    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

  • Homegroup and NTFS permissions

    - by bytenik
    I'm running a copy of Windows 7 as a "server" at my home. I have several file shares that I want to make available to specific users only. I've modified the NTFS permissions to only allow these users to access their respective shares. However, while a locally logged on user can access the actual folders just fine, over the network the remote access is authenticating as HomeGroupUser$ rather than the actual user in question, as shown by the Computer Management panel for shares. I do have matching user accounts (i.e. my username locally is abc and a parallel account with username abc and the same password exists on the server machine). I don't want to disable homegroup because there are other shares where homegroup authentication would be desirable, especially for some people where they don't have a parallel account. Is there a way to get the system to authenticate first by matching username, and then by homegroup authentication if there's no matching user?

    Read the article

  • Apache Probes -- what are they after?

    - by Chris_K
    The past few weeks I've been seeing more and more of these probes each day. I'd like to figure out what vulnerability they're looking for but haven't been able to turn anything up with a web search. Here's a sample of what I get in my morning Logwatch emails: A total of XX possible successful probes were detected (the following URLs contain strings that match one or more of a listing of strings that indicate a possible exploit): /MyBlog/?option=com_myblog&Itemid=12&task=../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../proc/self/environ%00 HTTP Response 200 /index2.php?option=com_myblog&item=12&task=../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../proc/self/environ%00 HTTP Response 200 /?option=com_myblog&Itemid=12&task=../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../proc/self/environ%00 HTTP Response 301 /index2.php?option=com_myblog&item=12&task=../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../proc/self/environ%00 HTTP Response 200 //index2.php?option=com_myblog&Itemid=1&task=../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../proc/self/environ%00 HTTP Response 200 This is coming from a current CentOS 5.4 / Apache 2 box with all updates. I've manually tried entering a few in to see what they get, but those all appear to just return the site's home page. This server is just hosting a few Joomla! sites... but this doesn't seem to be targeting Joomla (as far as I can tell). Anyone know what they're probing for? I just want to make sure whatever it is I've got it covered (or not installed). The escalation of these entries has me a bit concerned.

    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

  • Isolating Apache virtualhosts from the rest of the system

    - by JesperB
    I am setting up a web server that will host a number of different web sites as Apache VirtualHosts, each of these will have the possibility to run scripts (primarily PHP, possiblu others). My question is how I isolate each of these VirtualHosts from eachother and from the rest of the system? I don't want e.g. website X to read the configuration of website Y or any of the server's "private" files. At the moment I have set up the VirtualHosts with FastCGI, PHP and SUExec as described here (http://x10hosting.com/forums/vps-tutorials/148894-debian-apache-2-2-fastcgi-php-5-suexec-easy-way.html), but the SUExec only prevents users from editing/executing files other than their own - the users can still read sensitive information such as config files. I have thought about removing the UNIX global read permission for all files on the server, as this would fix the above problem, but I'm not sure if I can safely do this without disrupting the server function. I also looked into using chroot, but it seems that this can only be done on a per-server basis, and not on a per-virtual-host basis. I'm looking for any suggestions that will isolate my VirtualHosts from the rest of the system. PS I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 server

    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

  • User permission settings on DNS with windows 2003 server R2 standard edition

    - by Ghost Answer
    I have windows server 2003 r2 standard edition and some XP OS clients systems. I have created the DNS and profiles for all user. Now I want to authorized some users to installation of softwares, remove softwares and other such kind of things. How to I make such kind of policies for all different users on DNS. Please help me. May be this question can be same for another but I didn't get the solutions.

    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

  • Hardening Word and Reader against exploits

    - by satuon
    I have recently heard a lot about exploits for PDF and DOC files on Windows, which when opened in Reader or Word would infect the computer. I'm assuming most of those exploits rely on some kind of active content, I've heard that Reader allows JavaScript for example. I already have antivirus, but I've heard they often don't catch those types of exploits, so I want to try a little proactive defense. Is there a way to harden Reader and Word by disabling plugins or options that are often used by exploits?

    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

< Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180  | Next Page >