Search Results

Search found 25503 results on 1021 pages for 'browser security'.

Page 210/1021 | < Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 | Next Page >

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
Ubuntu Server attack? how to solve?

- by saky

Hello, Something (Someone) is sending out UDP packets sent from our whole ip range. This seems to be multicast DNS. Our server host provided this (Our IP Address is masked with XX): Jun 3 11:02:13 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:23 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:32 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:35 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 I checked my /var/log/auth.log file and found out that someone from China (Using ip-locator) was trying to get in to the server using ssh. ... Jun 3 11:32:00 server2 sshd[28511]: Failed password for root from 202.100.108.25 port 39047 ssh2 Jun 3 11:32:08 server2 sshd[28514]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.100.108.25 user=root Jun 3 11:32:09 server2 sshd[28514]: Failed password for root from 202.100.108.25 port 39756 ssh2 Jun 3 11:32:16 server2 sshd[28516]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.100.108.25 user=root ... I have blocked that IP address using this command: sudo iptables -A INPUT -s 202.100.108.25 -j DROP However, I have no clue about the UDP multicasting, what is doing this? who is doing it? and how I can stop it? Anyone know?

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
Blocking IP Range in .htaccess Problem

- by Pedro

Hi, I'm trying to block the access of one of my webapps using IP Filter in the .htaccess, the problem is that after updating the file with: order allow,deny deny from 58.14.0.0/15 allow from all I get the folowing error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. What is wrong? Regards, Pedro

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
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
allowing index access only with .htaccess

- by YsoL8

Hello I have this in my .htaccess file, in the site root: Options -Indexes <directory ../.*> Deny from all </directory> <Files .htaccess> order allow,deny deny from all </Files> <Files index.php> Order allow,deny allow from all </Files> What I'm trying to achieve is to block folder and file access to anything that isn't called index.php, regardless of which directory is accessed. I have the folder part working perfectly and the deny from all rule is working as well - but my attempt to allow access to index.php is failing. Basically could someone tell me how to get it working?

Read the article
allowing index access only with .htaccess

- by YsoL8

Hello I have this in my .htaccess file, in the site root: Options -Indexes <directory ../.*> Deny from all </directory> <Files .htaccess> order allow,deny deny from all </Files> <Files index.php> Order allow,deny allow from all </Files> What I'm trying to achieve is to block folder and file access to anything that isn't called index.php, regardless of which directory is accessed. I have the folder part working perfectly and the deny from all rule is working as well - but my attempt to allow access to index.php is failing. Basically could someone tell me how to get it working?

Read the article
How to create limited user accounts in Linux

- by James Willson

I want to create a user account for each of the key programs installed on my debian server. For example, for the following programs: Tomcat Nginx Supervisor PostgreSQL This seems to be recommended based on my reading online. However, I want to restrict these user accounts as much as possible, so that they dont have a shell login, dont have access to the other programs and are as limited as possible but still functional. Would anyone mind telling me how this could be achieved? My reading so far suggests this: echo "/usr/sbin/nologin" /etc/shells useradd -s /usr/sbin/nologin tomcat But I think there may be a more complete way of doing it. EDIT: I'm using debian squeeze

Read the article
Using the right folder for the right job. Article link, please?

- by Droogans

There are specific folders designed for specific tasks. /var/www holds your web sites, /usr/bin contains files to run your applications...yet I still find myself putting nearly all of my work in ~. Is it possible to overuse my home directory? Will it come back to haunt me? Anyone have a good link to an article of best practices for organizing your files so that they are placed in their "correct" place? Is there even such a thing in Linux? I am referring specifically to user-generated content. I do not compile applications from source, I use apt-get for those tasks. This article has a great introduction to what I'm looking for. Table 3-2, "Subdirectories of the root directory" is the sort of thing I'm looking for, but with more details/examples.

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
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
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
Isolate user from the rest of the system..?

- by Shiki

There is a non-techsavvy user, who doesn't want to learn, and can only use Windows XP or 7. The problem is, that the computer is shared which she would like to use, and the computer stores sensitive, important data. Since she clicks on everything, it's quite a russian roulette. How could I isolate her account from the rest of the system? Like having a profile on the computer (it runs Windows 7 now) which would have the files and other stuff sandboxed? I was thinking of having a dual boot system, but that could compromise the files too, or the boot sector (talking about Windows). Linux is not a way, hence ... see the first line. Is there such a software that can set up a sandboxed environment?

Read the article
How do I find out if mod_security is installed on my apache server?

- by Haluk

How can I find out if mod_security is installed on my apache server? I would also like to learn its version. I'm having some upload issues and I tried to disable mod_security using .htaccess. But that started producing 500 internal server errors. I read somewhere that depending on my mod_security version I might not be able to disable it using .htaccess. So I would like to understand if I have mod_security installed and what version it is. I'm on a centos 5 box. Thanks! UPDATE -1 xxxxxxxxxxxxx Does the below output mean I do not have mod_security installed? [root@u11 htdocs]# httpd -l Compiled in modules: core.c prefork.c http_core.c mod_so.c

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
zip password crack possible?

- by tm1rbrt

I have a piece of software i have to install on company laptops. The installer needs a serial to work properly, but i don't have it (my manager isn't here so i cant ask him). The installer tells me to ring a phone number which doesnt appear to be connected anymore. I would download win32dasm and ollydbg and have a go at cracking the installer but i dont really have time and i havnt done it in years. There is a zip file on the disc that looks like it contains all the program files but it is passworded. Is it feasible to crack this or will it take ages?

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
My website is infected, I restored a backup of the uninfected files, how long will it take to un-mark as dangerous?

- by Cyclone

My website www.sagamountain.com was recently infected by a malware distributor (or at least I think it may have been). I have removed all external content, google ads, firefly chat, etc. I uploaded a backup from a few weeks ago, when there was no issue. I patched the SQL injection hole. Now, how long will it take to unmark it as dangerous? Where can I contact google? I am not sure if this is the right place to post it, but since it may have been a server issue I may as well. Can sites inject base64 code via a virus on the whole server, or is it only via sql injection? Thanks for the help, viruses freak me out. Is there an online virus scanner that can scan my page and tell me what is wrong?

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
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 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
How to handle user accounts for many sites running on same server

- by Simon Courtenage

Background to this question: I want to host multiple e-commerce sites on the same server, each with their own separate customer login application. Each site's login application needs to be secured by SSL. I'm unsure how best to handle this. For example, do I need to acquire a separate SSL certificate for each site (in which case, how do I do this dynamically, as the sites are created), or do I handle this using ONE login gateway-style application, which handles it on behalf of all the sites via a kind of transparent redirect? I'd be grateful for any pointers or advice. Thanks.

Read the article
Which trojan is this?

- by omgHelpMe

Could you identify this trojan/keylogger based on the set of files? I've been able to find out that the file names are random except rp.dll. Also, the icons are always the same. Thanks guys.

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
Open source system for swipe card access?

- by Moduspwnens

We're looking at replacing our campus-wide magnetic swipe card system with something more robust. The "programmer" side of me says there's got to be an open-source, scalable solution that already does this, but all I've been able to find are proprietary vendor-specific solutions. Ideally, it'd have the following: Based on some open standard that allows us to select from a wide selection of card readers (like IMAP or HTTP) Support different kinds of card access (magnetic strip, RFIDs, etc.) Future-proof (to the extent possible) The lack of information I'm finding leads me to believe I'm not searching for the right things... or such a solution doesn't exist. Is there not some basic, open-source solution to this (like MySQL for databases, or Moodle for an LMS, or Apache for a web server)?

Read the article

< Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 | Next Page >