Search Results

Search found 22139 results on 886 pages for 'security testing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 213/886 | < Previous Page | 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220  | Next Page >

  • Why are email transfers between mail servers often not encrypted? Why aren't users warned about it?

    - by AmV
    Users can often choose if they want to access their email provider (such as Gmail) using a secure channel (e.g. using HTTPS). However, to the best of my knowledge, when it comes to mail-server-to-mail-server communications, most emails are still transferred in plain text and not encrypted, making it possible to anybody on the network to read their content. Are there any technologies that give the user some guarantees that his emails are sent securely from end to end ? Why not let the user know when encryption is not supported and let him choose if he wants his email to be still delivered ?

    Read the article

  • Got Hacked. Want to understand how.

    - by gaoshan88
    Someone has, for the second time, appended a chunk of javascript to a site I help run. This javascript hijacks Google adsense, inserting their own account number, and sticking ads all over. The code is always appended, always in one specific directory (one used by a third party ad program), affects a number of files in a number of directories inside this one ad dir (20 or so) and is inserted at roughly the same overnight time. The adsense account belongs to a Chinese website (located in a town not an hour from where I will be in China next month. Maybe I should go bust heads... kidding, sort of), btw... here is the info on the site: http://serversiders.com/fhr.com.cn So, how could they append text to these files? Is it related to the permissions set on the files (ranging from 755 to 644)? To the webserver user (it's on MediaTemple so it should be secure, yes?)? I mean, if you have a file that has permissions set to 777 I still can't just add code to it at will... how might they be doing this? Here is a sample of the actual code for your viewing pleasure (and as you can see... not much to it. The real trick is how they got it in there): <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-5465156513898836"; /* 728x90_as */ google_ad_slot = "4840387765"; google_ad_width = 728; google_ad_height = 90; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script> Since a number of folks have mentioned it, here is what I have checked (and by checked I mean I looked around the time the files were modified for any weirdness and I grepped the files for POST statements and directory traversals: access_log (nothing around the time except normal (i.e. excessive) msn bot traffic) error_log (nothing but the usual file does not exist errors for innocuous looking files) ssl_log (nothing but the usual) messages_log (no FTP access in here except for me)

    Read the article

  • Making Puppet manifests/modules available to a wide audience

    - by Kyle Smith
    Our team rolled puppet out to our systems over the last six months. We're managing all sorts of resources, and some of them have sensitive data (database passwords for automated backups, license keys for proprietary software, etc.). Other teams want to get involved in the development of (or at least be able to see) our modules and manifests. What have other people done to continue to have secure data moving through Puppet, while sharing the modules and manifests with a larger audience?

    Read the article

  • How to use basic auth for single file in otherwise forbidden Apache directory?

    - by mit
    I want to allow access to a single file in a directory that is otherwise forbidden. This did not work: <VirtualHost 10.10.10.10:80> ServerName example.com DocumentRoot /var/www/html <Directory /var/www/html> Options FollowSymLinks AllowOverride None order allow,deny allow from all </Directory> # disallow the admin directory: <Directory /var/www/html/admin> order allow,deny deny from all </Directory> # but allow this single file:: <Files /var/www/html/admin/allowed.php> AuthType basic AuthName "private area" AuthUserFile /home/webroot/.htusers Require user admin1 </Files> ... </VirtualHost> When I visit http://example.com/admin/allowed.php I get the Forbidden message of the http://example.com/admin/ directory. How can I make an exception for allowed.php? If not possible, maybe I could enumerate all forbidden files in another Files directive? Let's say admin/ contains also user.php and admin.php which should be forbidden in this virtual host.

    Read the article

  • china and gmail attachs -

    - by doug
    "We have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.” [source] I don't know much about how internet works, but as long the chines gov has access to the chines internet providers servers, why do they need to hack gmail accounts? I assume that i don't understand how submitting/writing a message(from user to gmail servers) works, in order to be sent later to the other email address. Who can tell me how submitting a message to a web form works?

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid: The Story

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • Is there a filesystem firewall?

    - by Jenko
    Ever since firewalls appeared on the scene, it became hard for rogue programs to access the internet. But you and I know that running applications get unrestricted access to the filesystem. They can read your files and send them to poppa. (programs such as web browsers and IM clients, which are allowed thru the internet firewall) Any way to know which programs are accessing your files? or limit their access to a specific partition?

    Read the article

  • Using IP Tables to deny packet patterns?

    - by Chris
    I'm not experienced with IP tables but it's something I'll be looking into if this is plausible. I'm looking to set up a system to inspect packets and look for a pattern similar to korek's chop chop attack. Is there a way to set up the IP tables to defend against this attack? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Encrypt shared files on AD Domain.

    - by Walter
    Can I encrypt shared files on windows server and allow only authenticated domain users have access to these files? The scenario as follows: I have a software development company, and I would like to protect my source code from being copied by my programmers. One problem is that some programmers use their own laptops to developing the company's software. In this scenario it's impossible to prevent developers from copying the source code for their laptops. In this case I thought about the following solution, but i don't know if it's possible to implement. The idea is to encrypt the source code and they are accessible (decrypted) only when developers are logged into the AD domain, ie if they are not logged into the AD domain, the source code would be encrypted be useless. Can be implemented this ? What technology should be used?

    Read the article

  • How to control remote access to Sonicwall VPN beyond passwords?

    - by pghcpa
    I have a SonicWall TZ-210. I want an extremely easy way to limit external remote access to the VPN beyond just username and password, but I do not wish to buy/deploy a OTP appliance because that is overkill for my situation. I also do not want to use IPSec because my remote users are roaming. I want the user to be in physical possession of something, whether that is a pre-configured client with an encrypted key or a certificate .cer/.pfx of some sort. SonicWall used to offer "Certificate Services" for authentication, but apparently discontinued that a long time ago. So, what is everyone using in its place? Beyond the "Fortune 500" expensive solution, how do I limit access to the VPN to only those users who have possession of a certificate file or some other file or something beyond passwords? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Hide/Replace Nginx Location Header?

    - by Steven Ou
    I am trying to pass a PCI compliance test, and I'm getting a single "high risk vulnerability". The problem is described as: Information on the machine which a web server is located is sometimes included in the header of a web page. Under certain circumstances that information may include local information from behind a firewall or proxy server such as the local IP address. It looks like Nginx is responding with: Service: https Received: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Location: http://ip-10-194-73-254/ Server: nginx/1.0.4 + Phusion Passenger 3.0.7 (mod_rails/mod_rack) Status: 302 X-Powered-By: Phusion Passenger (mod_rails/mod_rack) 3.0.7 X-Runtime: 0 Content-Length: 90 Connection: Close <html><body>You are being <a href="http://ip-10-194-73-254/">redirect ed</a>.</body></html> I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong: but from what I gathered, I think the problem is that the Location header is returning http://ip-10-194-73-254/, which is a private address, when it should be returning our domain name (which is ravn.com). So, I'm guessing I need to either hide or replace the Location header somehow? I'm a programmer and not a server admin so I have no idea what to do... Any help would be greatly appreciated! Also, might I add that we're running more than 1 server, so the configuration would need to be transferable to any server with any private address.

    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

  • How to setup server to accept pem(private RSA key) login w/o password like EC2?

    - by Chandler.Huang
    I am manage a group of VM and I need to setup all vm create a ssh tunnel to a specific host A. One way to do this is append public key of each VM to host's authorized_keys, but I guess I have to do the append each time i create a VM. So I am trying to config host A to accept pem or private key login without passowrd, just like EC2, client can use "ssh -i PEM" to login host A. But I have tried in vain for hours. I create a rsa public/private key and let VM use the private key to login, no matter what I do, host a still ask for password. Is there anything I missed ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Encrypt shared files on AD Domain.

    - by Walter
    Can I encrypt shared files on windows server and allow only authenticated domain users have access to these files? The scenario as follows: I have a software development company, and I would like to protect my source code from being copied by my programmers. One problem is that some programmers use their own laptops to developing the company's software. In this scenario it's impossible to prevent developers from copying the source code for their laptops. In this case I thought about the following solution, but i don't know if it's possible to implement. The idea is to encrypt the source code and they are accessible (decrypted) only when developers are logged into the AD domain, ie if they are not logged into the AD domain, the source code would be encrypted be useless. How can be implemented this using EFS?

    Read the article

  • How can I audit a Linux filesystem for files which have been changed or added within a specific time

    - by Bcos
    We are a website design/hosting company running several sites on a Linux server using Joomla 1.5.14 and recently someone was able exploit a vulnerability in the RW Cards component to write arbitrary files/modify existing files on our filesystem enabling them to do some nasty things to our customers sites. We have removed vulnerable modules from all sites but are still seeing some problems. We suspect that they still have some scripts installed and need a way to audit anything that has been changed or added in the last 10 days. Is there a command or script we can run to do this?

    Read the article

  • Explanation of nodev and nosuid in fstab

    - by Ivan Kovacevic
    I see those two options constantly suggested on the web when someone describes how to mount a tmpfs or ramfs. Often also with noexec but I'm specifically interested in nodev and nosuid. I basically hate just blindly repeating what somebody suggested, without real understanding. And since I only see copy/paste instructions on the net regarding this, I ask here. This is from documentation: nodev - Don't interpret block special devices on the filesystem. nosuid - Block the operation of suid, and sgid bits. But I would like a practical explanation what could happen if I leave those two out. Let's say that I have configured tmpfs or ramfs(without these two mentioned options set) that is accessible(read+write) by a specific (non-root)user on the system. What can that user do to harm the system? Excluding the case of consuming all available system memory in case of ramfs

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • Host's sys admins - can they view files?

    - by FullTrust
    Hi, Just a quick question. When using shared hosting, can system admins (employed by the host) access your files and read your database connectionstring details? Can they also access your database, and view the files, without a connectionstring? I'm assuming there's a certain level of trust, but is this possible/common? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why not block ICMP?

    - by Agvorth
    I think I almost have my iptables setup complete on my CentOS 5.3 system. Here is my script... # Establish a clean slate iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -F # Flush all rules iptables -X # Delete all chains # Disable routing. Drop packets if they reach the end of the chain. iptables -P FORWARD DROP # Drop all packets with a bad state iptables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j DROP # Accept any packets that have something to do with ones we've sent on outbound iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Accept any packets coming or going on localhost (this can be very important) iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # Accept ICMP iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT # Allow ssh iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # Allow httpd iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT # Allow SSL iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT # Block all other traffic iptables -A INPUT -j DROP For context, this machine is a Virtual Private Server Web app host. In a previous question, Lee B said that I should "lock down ICMP a bit more." Why not just block it altogether? What would happen if I did that (what bad thing would happen)? If I need to not block ICMP, how could I go about locking it down more?

    Read the article

  • OSX - Update "Java for OS X 2012-002" is not mentioned on support.apple.com, is this ok?

    - by snies
    Straight after installing "Java for OS X 2012-001" Software Update asks me to install "Java for OS X 2012-002", which has the exact same size (66.6 MB) and description (including the same two links: HT5055 and HT1222) as the former, which strikes me as odd. The "Java for OS X 2012-001" is described on the apple support pages, but the "Java for OS X 2012-002" is not mentioned anywhere. Also searching on google does not yield any usable results. What is your opinon? Am i paranoid? Did you also see this update?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220  | Next Page >