Search Results

Search found 97980 results on 3920 pages for 'code security'.

Page 221/3920 | < Previous Page | 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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

• 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

• How do I disable administrator prompt in Windows 8?

  - by Arnold Zokas

  I am using Windows 8 Enterprise on my development machine. Most of the time, I need full administrator for debugging, changing system files, etc. In Windows 7, setting UAC to "never notify" would disable any administrator prompts. In Windows 8 this is no longer the case. Even with UAC disabled I get prompted to grant programs elevated privileges. Is there a way disable this behaviour? Note: I am fully aware of the repercussions. I have antivirus, firewall, etc and am generally quite careful about what I download or install on my machine.

  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

• 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

• 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

• Bad ways to secure wireless network.

  - by Moshe

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

  Read the article

• How to 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Prevent registry changes by users

  - by graf_ignotiev

  Background: I run a small computer lab of 10 computers using Windows 7 x64 Enterprise. Our users are set up as limited users. For additional restrictions, I set up local group policy for non-administrators using the microsoft management console. Problem: Recently, I found out that some of these restrictions had been removed. Reviewing the settings MMC and in ntuser.pol showed that the settings should still be in place. However, the related registry settings were missing in ntuser.dat. I already have registry editing disabled in the GPO (though not in silent mode). Question: What is the best way to deal with this situation? Should I look into preventing registry setting changes? Should I set up registry auditing to found out how these keys are getting changed in the first place? Or should I give up the ghost and write some kind of logon script that enforces registry values if they've been change? Any other ideas?

  Read the article

• how insecure is my short password really?

  - by rika-uehara

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

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

• 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

• mystery Internet traffic to port 445

  - by Ben Collver

  Recently, I noticed traffic from the office network to TCP port 445 on the Internet [a]. Below are the Linux firewall log entries to Facebook's network [b] and Google's network [c]. I would like to identify the source of this traffic. My first guess is that Facebook and Google might be using multiple TCP ports for SSL load balancing. However, I could not confirm this based on the web proxy logs. What else might it be? [a] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/204279 [b] Sep 4 08:30:03 firewall01 kernel: IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=10.0.0.131 DST=69.171.237.34 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=14287 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=51711 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 [c] Aug 28 06:02:41 firewall01 kernel: IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=10.0.0.115 DST=173.194.33.47 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=4558 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=49294 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2012 - SSL Cypher Suite Order Not Long Enough

  - by Sam

  I want to re-order the cypher suites on our new Windows Server 2012 box to help mitigate the BEAST vulnerability for our clients. I went to Local Group Policy => Computer Configuration => Administrative Templates => Network => SSL Configuration Settings, opened SSL Cypher Suite Order, enabled it, and copied the values from the SSL Cypher Suites textbox. I pasted them into notepad, re-ordered them, then copied+pasted them back into the SSL Cypher Suites textbox. However, the box isn't long enough to hold them all, despite the fact that the length didn't change. I would have to drop the last 3 cyphers (SSL_CK_DES_192_EDE3_CBC_WITH_MD5,TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA256,TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA) in order for it to fit. Should I just drop them? Other ideas?

  Read the article

• How secure is the Subversion connection to an https URL

  - by reprogrammer

  I'm using TortoiseSVN as my subversion client on Windows 7. My subversion repository has an https URL. I'm on a public network and I'd like to make sure that my connection to the server is secure. I wonder if TortoiseSVN encrypts my password when it talks to my repository.

  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

• Restricting Access to Application(s) on Point of Sale system

  - by BSchlinker

  I have a customer with two point of sale systems, a few workstations and a Windows 2003 SBS Server. The point of sale systems are typically running QuickBooks Point of Sale and are logged in with a user who has restricted permissions / access (via Group Policy). Occasionally, one of the managers needs to be able to run a few additional applications -- including some accounting software. I have created an additional user for this manager, allowing them to login and access the accounting software. The problem is, it can be problematic to switch users on the system, as QuickBooks takes a few minutes to close (on POSUser) and then reopen (on ManagerUser). If customers are waiting, this slows things down drastically. Since the accounting software is stored on a network drive, it would be easiest if the manager could simply double click something, authenticate against the network drive / domain controller and then the program would launch. When they close the program, the session to the network drive would be lost and the program would no longer be accessible. Is there any easy way to do this? Both users are on a domain and the system is Windows 7. I just don't want to require the user to switch back and forth. In a worst case scenario, they forget to switch back and leave the accounting software wide open.

  Read the article

• Bacula Director and Storage in LAN

  - by B14D3

  I have two networks LAN and DMZ.. Machines in DMZ are accesible from internet ( only over http). In LAN I have servers that see all LAN and all DMZ machines but machinse from DMZ don't see any LAN servers. Machines in LAN have access only to all LAN and DMZ, no direct access to internet and no access from internet. DMZ <------ LAN DMZ ----X--->LAN I'm planning to configure Bacula as major backup system. My plan is to install Bacula Director and Storage deamon on the same server in LAN for safety reasons. So my question is: Will this configuration work, is it posible for bacula director and storage deamon installed on server in LAN to makes backup servers that are in my DMZ? Or in this network configuration Bacula should be in DMZ? (If yes will I can backup with it servers in LAN ?)

  Read the article

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

  - by GJ

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

  Read the article

• Nginx : Proper use of limit_req_zone and limit_req

  - by xperator

  I have 2 website running on VPS. Their purpose is sharing music files and publishing news. Both of them use wordpress. What I am trying is that I want to prevent little hackers from flooding the webserver and putting stress on the server to make it crash. The problem is that after using limit_req_zone and limit_req my website became very slow. Browsing Wordpress control panel takes a long long time. I tried changing values but it didn't improve much. I guess the problem is Wordpress because it's the only script I am using on both front and back end. Here is the last setting which seems to be more responsive than others : limit_req_zone $binary_remote_addr zone=flood:5m rate=10r/m; location ~ \.php$ { limit_req zone=flood burst=100 nodelay; } What are the optimal values that should be used in my case (wp) ? I want the website have it's normal behavior, On the other hand stopping lifeless people from flooding. Another question, Is it safe and enough to use limit_req only on php files ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228  | Next Page >