Search Results

Search found 15648 results on 626 pages for 'wcf security'.

Page 218/626 | < Previous Page | 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • iptables ACCEPT policy

    - by kamae
    In Redhat EL 6, iptables INPUT policy is ACCEPT but INPUT chain has REJECT entry in the end. /etc/syconfig/iptables is as below: *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT Do you know why the policy is ACCEPT not DROP? I think setting DROP policy is safer than ACCEPT in case to make mistake in the chain. Actually the policy is not applied to any packet: # iptables -L -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)

    Read the article

  • The Story of 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 if the story is boring and messy, but most of it is real! =) /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • How to report a malicious site to Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, etc. so that they will warn users

    - by Jayapal Chandran
    I completed a project a year ago. Now a few modification were needed. While trying to test the site, there was an index.html file with a malicious script which had an iframe to another site's jar file. Kaspersky antivirus blocked it. I browsed via ftp to find the file and I deleted it. I also disabled directory listing. Maybe the ftp details of the site owner would have been hacked. I want to report this site to Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and other antivirus providers. How do I do that? I hope kaspersky would have updated it in their database, but I still want to explicitly report this. Here is the popup kaspersky showed:

    Read the article

  • Router reporting failed admin login attempts from home server

    - by jeffora
    I recently noticed in the logs of my home router that it relatively regularly lists the following entry: [admin login failure] from source 192.168.0.160, Monday, June 20,2011 18:13:25 192.168.0.160 is the internal address of my home server, running Windows Home Server 2011. Is there anyway I can find out what specifically is trying to login to the router? Or is there some explanation for this behaviour? (not sure if this belongs here or on superuser...)

    Read the article

  • Apache httpOnly Cookie Information Disclosure CVE-2012-0053

    - by John
    A PCI compliance scan, on a CentOS LAMP server fails with this message. The server header and ServerSignature don't expose the Apache version. Apache httpOnly Cookie Information Disclosure CVE-2012-0053 Can this be resolved by simply specifying a custom ErrorDocument for the 400 Bad Request response? How is the scanner determining this vulnerability, is it invoking a bad request then looking to see if it's the default Apache 400 response?

    Read the article

  • Restrict Computer or Users from Internet but allow access to intranet and Windows Update / ePO?

    - by MoSiAc
    So this may be impossible but I've been asked to try and find something about it. So far nothing I have found is possible. I need to restrict specific machines or user accounts from regular Internet access but let them have access to the intranet portion of our network. I do not have Active Directory control, nor does anyone at my local workplace (corporate control in a different state). I have tried going through IPsec and doing this per local machine, but that system seems to have been removed from the images that are installed on these machines so that is out. So far the only other option I can think of is assigning the machines a specific ip address and removing their gateway access. This would probably work but the machines need to be able to receive updates that are being pushed to them through ePO and LanDesk. I would really like to do this on the user level because then if I need to do tech work to the machine and need internet access I can get to it but a "special" user could login and not be able to get into anything.

    Read the article

  • Router reporting failed admin login attempts from home server

    - by jeffora
    I recently noticed in the logs of my home router that it relatively regularly lists the following entry: [admin login failure] from source 192.168.0.160, Monday, June 20,2011 18:13:25 192.168.0.160 is the internal address of my home server, running Windows Home Server 2011. Is there anyway I can find out what specifically is trying to login to the router? Or is there some explanation for this behaviour? (not sure if this belongs here or on superuser...) [Update] I've run both Wireshark and netmon for a while on my home server. Wireshark captured the traffic, but didn't really show anything useful (or nothing I could make use of). A simple HTTP GET request is sent from the server (192.168.0.160) to the router (192.168.0.1), from a seemingly random port (I've seen examples from 50068, 52883), and it appears to do it twice in quick succession (incrementing port by 1), about every hour. Running netstat around the time of the failure didn't show anything (probably too long after anyway). I tried using netmon as it categorises by process, so I thought it might show a corresponding process for the port. Unfortunately, this comes in under the 'unknown' category, meaning it's basically just a slower, less useful Wireshark. I know there's not much to go on here, but does this help in anyway?

    Read the article

  • What is a good solution for an adaptive iptables daemon?

    - by Matt
    I am running a series of web servers and already have a pretty good set of firewall rules set up, however I'm looking for something to monitor the traffic and add rules as needed. I have denyhosts monitoring for bad SSH logins, and that's great - but I'd love something I could apply to the whole machine that would help prevent bute force attacks against my web applications as well, and add rules to block IPs that display evidence of common attacks. I've seen APF, but it looks as though it hasn't been updated in several years. Is it still in use and would it be good for this? Also, what other solutions are out there that would manipulate iptables to behave in some adaptive fashion? I'm running Ubuntu Linux, if that helps.

    Read the article

  • How to allow password protected start-stop-daemon functionality?

    - by Mahmoud Abdelkader
    I would like to use Ubuntu's start-stop-daemon to start my application, but the application protects some sensitive information, so I have a mechanism where the application prompts for a password that's then used to generate a hashkey, which is used as the secret key for a symmetric encryption (AES) to encrypt and decrypt things from a database. I'd like to daemonize this application and have it run from start-stop-daemon, so that sudo service appname stop and sudo service appname start would work, but, I'm not sure how to go about doing this with the added complexity of a password prompt. Is there something that supports this or do I have to program it from scratch? I figured I should ask first before re-inventing the wheel. Thanks in advance.

    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

  • Can Solaris RBAC roles be ported to Linux using SElinux only?

    - by Jimmy
    We are migrating an application from Solaris to Linux and the main user is allowed, through the use of RBAC roles, to run a few system commands like svccfg/svcadm (chkconfig on redhat). Is it possible, using only SElinux (no sudo), to allow a normal user to run chkconfig off/on (basically give it the ability to add remove services) ? My approach was to try to create an SElinux user with a corresponding SElinux role that manages the app's domain/type and is allowed to transition to all other domains required to run chkconfig, tcpdump or any other system utility usually restricted to root access only. All my attempts so far have failed, so my second question would be where could I find good documentation that applies to this specific problem ?

    Read the article

  • Windows: disable remote access of local drive, even by domain admin

    - by Matt
    We have a network of Windows 7 PCs that are managed as part of a domain. What we want is for the domain admin to be unable to view the PC's local drive (C:) unless he is physically at the PC. In other words, no remote desktop and no ability to use UNC. In other words, the domain admin should not be allowed to put \\user_pc\c$ in Windows Explorer and see all the files on that computer, unless he is physically present at the PC itself. Edit: to clarify some of the questions/comments that have come up. Yes, I am an admin---but a complete Windows novice. And yes, for the sake of this and my similar questions, it is fair to assume that I am working for someone who is paranoid. I understand the arguments about this being a "social problem versus a technical problem", and "you should be able to trust your admins", etc. But this is the situation in which I find myself. I'm basically new to Windows system administration, but am tasked with creating an environment that is secure by the company owner's definition---and this definition is clearly very different from what most people expect. In short, I understand that this is an unusual request. But I'm hoping there is enough expertise in the ServerFault community to point me in the right direction.

    Read the article

  • Does the password get sent in the clear when connecting to Sql-Server?

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I was asked this today and I honestly did not know the answer. If you connect using a connection string without sspi to a server is there any way a 3rd party can intercept on the wire the password used to log in? "Data Source=MyServer;Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;User Id=sa;Password=CanThisBeSniffed;" I am not asking about MiTM attacks just someone listing on the same computer or on the same hub on the network with wireshark or something similar running. I fired up wireshark myself and did not see it in plain text but it could be a simple obfuscation or proper encryption, I just wanted to know which.

    Read the article

  • Steps to make sure network is not blacklisted...Again

    - by msindle
    I have an interesting issue. I have a client that just got blacklisted due to spam being sent out over the last 2 days. I have my firewall configured to only allow mail to go outbound on port 25 from our mail server (Exchange 2010) exclusively and I have verified that there are no open relay's on our transport rules. We are running Vipre Business and after running deep scans with updated definitions all computers come back clean. I ran a message tracking report on our Exchange server that shows all mail sent via the mail server over the last couple of weeks and didn't see anything malicious or out of the ordinary. I have also verified that there are no home devices or rouge computers on the network. For all practical purposes it appears that the network is clean, but we still wound up on 5 or 6 blacklists...Where should I start looking next? Is there a "best practices" guide that can help eradicate this issue? Thanks in advance! msindle

    Read the article

  • Apache httpd: Send error logs to syslog and local disk? Without touching /etc/syslog.conf?

    - by Stefan Lasiewski
    I have an Apache httpd 2.2 server. I want to log all messages using syslog, so that the requests are sent to our central syslog server. I also want to ensure that all log messages are sent to local disk, so that a sysadmin can have easy access to the log files on the local system. It is easy to send HTTP access logs to both the local disk and to syslog. One common method is: LogFormat "%V %h %l %u %t \"%r\" %>s %b \"%{Referer}i\" \"%{User-Agent}i\"" combined CustomLog logs/access_log combined CustomLog "|/usr/bin/logger -t httpd -i -p local4.info" combined But it is not easy to do this for error logs. The following configuration doesn't work, because the error logs only use the last ErrorLog stanza. The first ErrorLog stanza is ignored. ErrorLog logs/error_log ErrorLog syslog:local4.error How can I ensure that Apache errors logs are written to the local disk and are sent to syslog? Is it possible to do this without touching /etc/syslog.conf ? I am fine if my users want to manage their own Apache configuration files, but I do not want them touching system files such as /etc/syslog.conf

    Read the article

  • How do I properly check if a program is a virus/trojan in VMware?

    - by acidzombie24
    How I should check if a program is a virus in VMware? Some programs I do need admin ability to install and it makes sense. But how do I know if it's doing more than I want? Some thoughts are: How many processes open when I launch the application What is added to the startup tab in msconfig If any services are added. That's pretty much all my ideas. Even if it does something I recognize I wouldn't know if it's necessary or not. What are some rule of thumb? -Edit- What about registries, can I use that information to help? Maybe have a scanner tell me if the application I just used has messed with sections (like bootup) it shouldn't have?

    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

  • 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

  • Firewall Deep Inspection Updates and Antivirus Subscription, worth it?

    - by msemack
    I realize that this is a subjective question, but I'm trying to get some experiences We have Juniper firewalls in our organization (SSG-320M, SSG-5, and some old NS-5GT). We have the option of a yearly subscription for: Deep Inspection Signature Updates Juniper-Kaspersky Antivirus I seem similar services available from other Firewall vendors. We have Symantec Endpoint Protection deployed to all workstations and servers, plus a dedicated appliance for e-mail spam/virus filtering. So, I'm not sure what these firewall-base services will bring to the table that I don't already have. I would appreciate some feedback from people using these firewall services (Juniper or otherwise). Are these services generally worth it? Do they really catch anything? Do they interfere with normal traffic (false positives)?

    Read the article

  • Does a VPS need a firewall?

    - by Camran
    Do I need a firewall on my VPS which I ordered today? If so, which one would you recommend? I plan on running a classifieds website with Java, php, mysql. My OS is ubuntu 9.10 Thanks Btw: What is iptables?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225  | Next Page >