Search Results

Search found 19179 results on 768 pages for 'ms security essentials'.

Page 179/768 | < Previous Page | 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186  | Next Page >

  • How Hacker Can Access VPS CentOS 6 content?

    - by user2118559
    Just want to understand. Please, correct mistakes and write advices Hacker can access to VPS: 1. Through (using) console terminal, for example, using PuTTY. To access, hacker need to know port number, username and password. Port number hacker can know scanning open ports and try to login. The only way to login as I understand need to know username and password. To block (make more difficult) port scanning, need to use iptables configure /etc/sysconfig/iptables. I followed this https://www.digitalocean.com/community/articles/how-to-setup-a-basic-ip-tables-configuration-on-centos-6 tutorial and got *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [87:4524] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [77:4713] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [77:4713] COMMIT *mangle :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2358:200388] :INPUT ACCEPT [2358:200388] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [2638:477779] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2638:477779] COMMIT *filter :INPUT DROP [1:40] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [339:56132] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG NONE -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp ! --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,ACK SYN -m state --state NEW -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG -j DROP -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 110 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 11.111.11.111/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 11.111.11.111/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT COMMIT Regarding ports that need to be opened. If does not use ssl, then seems must leave open port 80 for website. Then for ssh (default 22) and for ftp (default 21). And set ip address, from which can connect. So if hacker uses other ip address, he can not access even knowing username and password? Regarding emails not sure. If I send email, using Gmail (Send mail as: (Use Gmail to send from your other email addresses)), then port 25 not necessary. For incoming emails at dynadot.com I use Email Forwarding. Does it mean that emails “does not arrive to VPS” (before arriving to VPS, emails are forwarded, for example to Gmail)? If emails does not arrive to VPS, then seems port 110 also not necessary. If use only ssl, must open port 443 and close port 80. Do not understand regarding port 3306 In PuTTY with /bin/netstat -lnp see Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 992/mysqld As understand it is for mysql. But does not remember that I have opened such port (may be when installed mysql, the port is opened automatically?). Mysql is installed on the same server, where all other content. Need to understand regarding port 3306 2. Also hacker may be able access console terminal through VPS hosting provider Control Panel (serial console emergency access). As understand only using console terminal (PuTTY, etc.) can make “global” changes (changes that can not modify with ftp). 3. Hacker can access to my VPS exploiting some hole in my php code and uploading, for example, Trojan. Unfortunately, faced situation that VPS was hacked. As understand it was because I used ZPanel. On VPS ( \etc\zpanel\panel\bin) ) found one php file, that was identified as Trojan by some virus scanners (at virustotal.com). Experimented with the file on local computer (wamp). And appears that hacker can see all content of VPS, rename, delete, upload etc. From my opinion, if in PuTTY use command like chattr +i /etc/php.ini then hacker could not be able to modify php.ini. Is there any other way to get into VPS?

    Read the article

  • TeamViewer - only allow domain logins

    - by BloodyIron
    I recently started a Systems Admin job where teamviewer is used pretty frequently here. Another admin recently left, and the concern is they still have access to all our systems due to how teamviewer works. I want to migrate the entire environment to domain authentication. The documentation shows that setting up windows auth (domain) is easy, but I want to be sure that it is the only way to be authenticated with a teamviewer session here. I cannot yet find anything which explicitly says this. We have licensing for teamviewer 5 and 6, I think. Right now we have 7 in the environment, but I think most are in a trial version, so I am likely to revert to 5 or 6.

    Read the article

  • Webserver logs: "Morfeus Fucking Scanner"

    - by Patrick
    I've just found these accesses in my web server log files: ::ffff:218.38.136.38 109.72.95.175 - [10/Jan/2011:02:54:12 +0100] "GET /user/soapCaller.bs HTTP/1.1" 404 345 "-" "Morfeus Fucking Scanner" ::ffff:218.38.136.38 109.72.95.174 - [10/Jan/2011:02:54:12 +0100] "GET /user/soapCaller.bs HTTP/1.1" 404 345 "-" "Morfeus Fucking Scanner" Should I start to worry ? Or is it just a normal attempt to hack my server ? thanks

    Read the article

  • How to securely delete files stored on a SSD?

    - by Chris Neuroth
    From a (very long, but definitely worth to read) article on SSDs: When you delete a file in your OS, there is no reaction from either a hard drive or SSD. It isn’t until you overwrite the sector (on a hard drive) or page (on a SSD) that you actually lose the data. File recovery programs use this property to their advantage and that’s how they help you recover deleted files. The key distinction between HDDs and SSDs however is what happens when you overwrite a file. While a HDD can simply write the new data to the same sector, a SSD will allocate a new (or previously used) page for the overwritten data. The page that contains the now invalid data will simply be marked as invalid and at some point it’ll get erased. So, what would be the best way to securely erase files stored on a SSD? Overwriting with random data as we are used to from hard disks (e.g. using the "shred" utility) won't work unless you overwrite the WHOLE drive...

    Read the article

  • Real benefits of tcp TIME-WAIT and implications in production environment

    - by user64204
    SOME THEORY I've been doing some reading on tcp TIME-WAIT (here and there) and what I read is that it's a value set to 2 x MSL (maximum segment life) which keeps a connection in the "connection table" for a while to guarantee that, "before your allowed to create a connection with the same tuple, all the packets belonging to previous incarnations of that tuple will be dead". Since segments received (apart from SYN under specific circumstances) while a connection is either in TIME-WAIT or no longer existing would be discarded, why not close the connection right away? Q1: Is it because there is less processing involved in dealing with segments from old connections and less processing to create a new connection on the same tuple when in TIME-WAIT (i.e. are there performance benefits)? If the above explanation doesn't stand, the only reason I see the TIME-WAIT being useful would be if a client sends a SYN for a connection before it sends remaining segments for an old connection on the same tuple in which case the receiver would re-open the connection but then get bad segments and and would have to terminate it. Q2: Is this analysis correct? Q3: Are there other benefits to using TIME-WAIT? SOME PRACTICE I've been looking at the munin graphs on a production server that I administrate. Here is one: As you can see there are more connections in TIME-WAIT than ESTABLISHED, around twice as many most of the time, on some occasions four times as many. Q4: Does this have an impact on performance? Q5: If so, is it wise/recommended to reduce the TIME-WAIT value (and what to)? Q6: Is this ratio of TIME-WAIT / ESTABLISHED connections normal? Could this be related to malicious connection attempts?

    Read the article

  • Creating limited user account on Windows 7

    - by serena
    I'm sharing my PC (Win 7 x64 Home Premium) with a friend, and I wanna create a guest user for her. I don't want her to reach my files, Windows settings, program adjustments etc. She should just surf the net, create/edit her own Word, Excel documents, and simple things like these. How can I create this user account and make the necessary arrangements for limitations?

    Read the article

  • How do I remove the ServerSignature added by mod_fcgid?

    - by matthew
    I'm running Mod_Security and I'm using the SecServerSignature to customize the Server header that Apache returns. This part works fine, however I'm also running mod_fcgid which appends "mod_fcgid/2.3.5" to the header. Is there any way I can turn this off? Setting ServerSignature off doesn't do anything. I was able to get it to go away by changing the ServerTokens but that removed the customization I had added.

    Read the article

  • What is the EGG environment variable?

    - by Randall
    A user on our (openSuSE) linux systems attempted to run sudo, and triggered an alert. He has the environment variable EGG set - EGG=UH211åH1ÒH»ÿ/bin/shHÁSH211çH1ÀPWH211æ°;^O^Ej^A_j<X^O^EÉÃÿ This looks unusual to say the least. Is EGG a legitimate environment variable? (I've found some references to PYTHON_EGG_CACHE - could be related? But that environment variable isn't set for this user). If it's legit, then I imagine this group has the best chance of recognizing it. Or, given the embedded /bin/sh in the string above, does anyone recognize this as an exploit fingerprint? It wouldn't be the first time we had a cracked account (sigh).

    Read the article

  • Disallow root to su on a user which is not listed in /etc/passwd

    - by marc.riera
    Hello, on linux we autenticate users against AD. The AD users are not listed on /etc/passwd. We are about to deploy a NFS solution to mount some extra space for each group of users. If a user(A) with sudo su privileges goes to root, then he can impersonate user(B) just by su user(B) and going to the NFS. Is there any way to disallow root to su user if the user is not listed on /etc/passwd ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Securing DRAC/ILO

    - by The Diamond Z
    This might be a dumb question but DRAC/ILO both have HTTP server interfaces. If I were trolling IP's port 80 on and I came across such a page I'd know it to be a high value target in the sense that if I can crack it, I can take control of the server to some extent (potentially installing another OS). Other than changing the port, what are the best practices for securing DRAC/ILO on public Internet facing machines?

    Read the article

  • Cannot access an application folder in Program files

    - by GiddyUpHorsey
    I recently installed Windows 7 Professional 64bit on a new machine. I installed an application using a ClickOnce installer. The application runs fine, but I cannot access the application folder it created in c:\Program files (x86). It bombs with access denied. I try to view the properties on the folder and it takes about 1 minute to display (other folders take 1 second). It says I cannot view any information because I'm not the owner. It doesn't say who the current owner is (instead - Unable to display current owner.) but says I can take ownership. When I try it fails again with Access Denied, even though I have administrative permissions. Why can't I access this folder nor take ownership?

    Read the article

  • How to disable mod_security2 rule (false positive) for one domain on centos 5

    - by nicholas.alipaz
    Hi I have mod_security enabled on a centos5 server and one of the rules is keeping a user from posting some text on a form. The text is legitimate but it has the words 'create' and an html <table> tag later in it so it is causing a false positive. The error I am receiving is below: [Sun Apr 25 20:36:53 2010] [error] [client 76.171.171.xxx] ModSecurity: Access denied with code 500 (phase 2). Pattern match "((alter|create|drop)[[:space:]]+(column|database|procedure|table)|delete[[:space:]]+from|update.+set.+=)" at ARGS:body. [file "/usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf"] [line "352"] [id "300015"] [rev "1"] [msg "Generic SQL injection protection"] [severity "CRITICAL"] [hostname "www.mysite.com"] [uri "/node/181/edit"] [unique_id "@TaVDEWnlusAABQv9@oAAAAD"] and here is /usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf (line 352) #Generic SQL sigs SecRule ARGS "((alter|create|drop)[[:space:]]+(column|database|procedure|table)|delete[[:space:]]+from|update.+set.+=)" "id:1,rev:1,severity:2,msg:'Generic SQL injection protection'" The questions I have are: What should I do to "whitelist" or allow this rule to get through? What file do I create and where? How should I alter this rule? Can I set it to only be allowed for the one domain, since it is the only one having the issue on this dedicated server or is there a better way to exclude table tags perhaps? Thanks guys

    Read the article

  • Network vulnerability and port scanning services

    - by DigitalRoss
    I'm setting up a periodic port scan and vulnerability scan for a medium-sized network implementing a customer-facing web application. The hosts run CentOS 5.4. I've used tools like Nmap and OpenVAS, but our firewall rules have special cases for connections originating from our own facilities and servers, so really the scan should be done from the outside. Rather than set up a VPS or EC2 server and configuring it with various tools, it seems like this could just be contracted out to a port and vulnerability scanning service. If they do it professionally they may be more up to date than something I set up and let run for a year... Any recommendations or experience doing this?

    Read the article

  • how insecure is my short password really?

    - by rika-uehara
    Using systems like TrueCrypt, when I have to define a new password I am often informed that using a short password is insecure and "very easy" to break by brute-force. I always use passwords of 8 characters in length, which are not based on dictionary words, which consists of characters from the set A-Z, a-z, 0-9 I.e. I use password like sDvE98f1 How easy is it to crack such a password by brute-force? I.e. how fast. I know it heavily depends on the hardware but maybe someone could give me an estimate how long it would take to do this on a dual core with 2GHZ or whatever to have a frame of reference for the hardware. To briute-force attack such a password one needs not only to cycle through all combinations but also try to de-crypt with each guessed password which also needs some time. Also, is there some software to brute-force hack truecrypt because I want to try to brute-force crack my own passsword to see how long it takes if it is really that "very easy".

    Read the article

  • Disable mod_security on Dreamhost, for a single cgi script

    - by Hippyjim
    Hi I've searched around a lot, and tried various tweaks to .htaccess files to try to turn off mod_security for a particular cgi script (uber uploader) but it doesn't seem to have any effect. The most popular one I see rehashed all over the web is: # Turn off mod_security filtering. SecFilterEngine Off # The below probably isn't needed, # but better safe than sorry. SecFilterScanPOST Off Which looks relative simple to me - if "SecFilterEngine" is in some way related to mod_security of course. Shame it has absolutely no effect! Does anyone have a suggested way I can simply disable it for a request to any file in my cgi-bin directory?

    Read the article

  • Information about recent code injection from http://superiot.ru

    - by klennepette
    Hello, I manage the hosting for a few dozen websites. Since about a week I've been finding this code in 12 different websites in theindex.php files: <script type="text/javascript" src="http://superiot.ru/**.js"></script> // The name of the actual javascript file differs <!-- some hash here--> Some of the websites are on different servers, some aren't. I'm just wondering if anyone else has been seeing this too. Edit with some more information: All servers are centOS 5.3 PHP versions are either 5.2.9 or 5.2.4 Apache versions are either 2.2.3 or 1.3.39

    Read the article

  • Trusted Root certificates regularly disappear on Windows 7

    - by Evgeny
    I've installed several self-signed certificates on my Windows 7 Ultimate x64 machine for development purposes. One was installed into Trusted Root CAs and 2 were installed into My Certificates and Trusted People. Every day or two the certificate installed into Trusted Root CAs disappears and I have to re-install it! This is annoying the hell out of me. Why is it happening and how do I stop it? The other certificates (installed into other stores) do not disappear. My first thought was some kind of Group Policy, but my machine is not part of a domain - though it does obtains its IP address from a corporate DHCP server, so I'm not sure if they can somehow still manage to apply Group Policy to me.

    Read the article

  • Bad ways to secure wireless network.

    - by Moshe
    I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on this, as I recently saw a Verizon DSL network set up where the WEP key was the last 8 characters of the router's MAC address. (It's bad enough that hey were using WEP in the first place...)

    Read the article

  • How to protect an OS X Server from an anautorized physical connection?

    - by GJ
    Hi I have an OS X 10.6 server, which I administer via SSH and VNC (via SSH tunnel). I can't leave it at the login window since then VNC connections are refused. Therefore I currently leave it logged with my user account. Since it doesn't have a monitor attached, it doesn't go into screen saver mode, which means it doesn't require a password to retake control. This means it is very easy for anyone connecting a keyboard/mouse and monitor to take control of the system. The screen saver password protection, which I can't get to activate, unlike the system's login window, is perfectly compatible with VNC connections. How could I prevent such direct access to the server without connecting a monitor and without blocking my ability to connect with VNC? Thanks!

    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

  • Using SSLv3 - Enabling Strong Ciphers Server 2008

    - by Igor K
    I've disabled SSLv2 and SSLv3 is on. However I cannot connect to a remote server which fails with The client and server cannot communicate, because they do not possess a common algorithm Ran an SSL check (http://www.serversniff.net/sslcheck.php) on the remote server and ours, and noticed none of the ciphers they accept we have on our server. How can this be configured? (Windows Web Server 2008) Remote Server Accepted SSL ciphers: DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA AES256-SHA EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA DES-CBC3-SHA DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA AES128-SHA Our server by default accepts: DES-CBC3-SHA RC4-SHA RC4-MD5

    Read the article

  • Encrypt LAN and wifi traffic on small private network

    - by Grimlockz
    I need some advice about encrypt all traffic on a small private network running wi-fi and LAN traffic on 192.168.0.x network. The network would comprise of client laptops connecting to the wi-fi router (192.168.0.254) via ethernet connection or wireless. The main purpose of the server is for the client laptops to talk to two servers on different IP's (192.168.0.200 and 192.168.0.201) on ports 80 and 433. My main concern is having packet sniffers and what not getting access to the data. The only ways I see at the moment is to have VPN running on the network or use IPSec policy's to do this. Any other ways guys?

    Read the article

  • Correctly setting up UFW on Ubuntu Server 10 LTS which has Nginx, FastCGI and MySQL?

    - by littlejim84
    Hello. I'm wanting to get my firewall on my new webserver to be as secure as it needs to be. After I did research for iptables, I came across UFW (Uncomplicated FireWall). This looks like a better way for me to setup a firewall on Ubuntu Server 10 LTS and seeing that it's part of the install, it seems to make sense. My server will have Nginx, FastCGI and MySQL on it. I also want to be allow SSH access (obviously). So I'm curious to know exactly how I should set up UFW and is there anything else I need to take into consideration? After doing research, I found an article that explains it this way: # turn on ufw ufw enable # log all activity (you'll be glad you have this later) ufw logging on # allow port 80 for tcp (web stuff) ufw allow 80/tcp # allow our ssh port ufw allow 5555 # deny everything else ufw default deny # open the ssh config file and edit the port number from 22 to 5555, ctrl-x to exit nano /etc/ssh/sshd_config # restart ssh (don't forget to ssh with port 5555, not 22 from now on) /etc/init.d/ssh reload This all seems to make sense to me. But is it all correct? I want to back this up with any other opinions or advice to ensure I do this right on my server. Many thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186  | Next Page >