Search Results

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

Page 260/1021 | < Previous Page | 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267  | Next Page >

  • How do i sign variables?

    - by acidzombie24
    I have a few variables that must be stored on the client side. As usual anything on client side can be tampered. I would like to sign a few variables and verified them when the data is sent back to the server. At the moment i think they are 5 64bit vars. On the server i would like to sign those 5 variables, then ensure the signature is valid when the client sends it back. How do i do this using C# .NET?

    Read the article

  • Which SHA-256 is correct? The Java SHA-256 digest or the Linux commandline tool

    - by Peter Tillemans
    When I calculate in Java an SHA-256 of a string with the following method I get : 5e884898da2847151d0e56f8dc6292773603dd6aabbdd62a11ef721d1542d8 on the commandline I do : echo "password" | sha256sum and get 5e884898da28047151d0e56f8dc6292773603d0d6aabbdd62a11ef721d1542d8 if we compare these more closely I find 2 subtle differences 5e884898da2847151d0e56f8dc6292773603dd6aabbdd62a11ef721d1542d8 5e884898da28047151d0e56f8dc6292773603d0d6aabbdd62a11ef721d1542d8 or : 5e884898da28 47151d0e56f8dc6292773603d d6aabbdd62a11ef721d1542d8 5e884898da28 0 47151d0e56f8dc6292773603d 0 d6aabbdd62a11ef721d1542d8 Which of the 2 is correct here?

    Read the article

  • Temporarily impersonate and enable privileges?

    - by Luke
    We maintain a DLL that does a lot of system-related things; traversing the file system, registry, etc. The callers of this DLL may or may not be using impersonation. In order to better support all possible scenarios I'm trying to modify it to be smarter. I'll use the example of deleting a file. Currently we just call DeleteFile(), and if that fails that's the end of that. I've come up with the following: BOOL TryReallyHardToDeleteFile(LPCTSTR lpFileName) { // 1. caller without privilege BOOL bSuccess = DeleteFile(lpFileName); DWORD dwError = GetLastError(); if(!bSuccess && dwError == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED) { // failed with access denied; try with privilege DWORD dwOldRestorePrivilege = 0; BOOL bHasRestorePrivilege = SetPrivilege(SE_RESTORE_NAME, SE_PRIVILEGE_ENABLED, &dwOldRestorePrivilege); if(bHasRestorePrivilege) { // 2. caller with privilege bSuccess = DeleteFile(lpFileName); dwError = GetLastError(); SetPrivilege(SE_RESTORE_NAME, dwOldRestorePrivilege, NULL); } if(!bSuccess && dwError == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED) { // failed with access denied; if caller is impersonating then try as process HANDLE hToken = NULL; if(OpenThreadToken(GetCurrentThread(), TOKEN_QUERY | TOKEN_IMPERSONATE, TRUE, &hToken)) { if(RevertToSelf()) { // 3. process without privilege bSuccess = DeleteFile(lpFileName); dwError = GetLastError(); if(!bSuccess && dwError == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED) { // failed with access denied; try with privilege bHasRestorePrivilege = SetPrivilege(SE_RESTORE_NAME, SE_PRIVILEGE_ENABLED, &dwOldRestorePrivilege); if(bHasRestorePrivilege) { // 4. process with privilege bSuccess = DeleteFile(lpFileName); dwError = GetLastError(); SetPrivilege(SE_RESTORE_NAME, dwOldRestorePrivilege, NULL); } } SetThreadToken(NULL, hToken); } CloseHandle(hToken); hToken = NULL; } } } if(!bSuccess) { SetLastError(dwError); } return bSuccess; } So first it tries as the caller. If that fails with access denied, it temporarily enables privileges in the caller's token and tries again. If that fails with access denied and the caller is impersonating, it temporarily unimpersonates and tries again. If that fails with access denied, it temporarily enables privileges in the process token and tries again. I think this should handle pretty much any situation, but I was wondering if there was a better way to achieve this? There are a lot of operations that we would potentially want to use this method (i.e. pretty much any operation that accesses securable objects).

    Read the article

  • Row level user permissions, help with design

    - by bambam
    Hi, Say I am creating a forums application, I understand how to design a forum level permission system with Groups. i.e. you create a forum to group mapping, and assign users to a group to give them access to a particular forum. How can I refine the permissions to allow for row level permissions (or in forum terms, post level).

    Read the article

  • Are these two functions overkill for sanitization?

    - by jpjp
    function sanitizeString($var) { $var = stripslashes($var); $var = htmlentities($var); $var = strip_tags($var); return $var; } function sanitizeMySQL($var) { $var = mysql_real_escape_string($var); $var = sanitizeString($var); return $var; } I got these two functions from a book and the author says that by using these two, I can be extra safe against XSS(the first function) and sql injections(2nd func). Are all those necessary? Also for sanitizing, I use prepared statements to prevent sql injections. I would use it like this: $variable = sanitizeString($_POST['user_input']); $variable = sanitizeMySQL($_POST['user_input']);

    Read the article

  • Shared User Session for Multiple ASP.NET Websites

    - by Oliver
    I have been tasked with developing a single Login and Dashboard page that user can login too, the user will then be shown all the systems (we developed) that they have access based to based on some roles stored in our databases. If they logged in we would like that "User Session" (not sure of correct terminology) to be carried to which ever system they are redirected too. To illustrate a very rough overview of what I want to achieve: Is there a way that a user can login in one site, and then carry over that login to the other sites? Help, Advice, Link will be much appreciated. Sorry I am not experienced at ASP.net but have a good understanding of Silverlight, C#, WPF. Thanks in advance.

    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

  • Simulating O_NOFOLLOW (2): Is this other approach safe?

    - by Daniel Trebbien
    As a follow-up question to this one, I thought of another approach which builds off of @caf's answer for the case where I want to append to file name and create it if it does not exist. Here is what I came up with: Create a temporary directory with mode 0700 in a system temporary directory on the same filesystem as file name. Create an empty, temporary, regular file (temp_name) in the temporary directory (only serves as placeholder). Open file name for reading only, just to create it if it does not exist. The OS may follow name if it is a symbolic link; I don't care at this point. Make a hard link to name at temp_name (overwriting the placeholder file). If the link call fails, then exit. (Maybe someone has come along and removed the file at name, who knows?) Use lstat on temp_name (now a hard link). If S_ISLNK(lst.st_mode), then exit. open temp_name for writing, append (O_WRONLY | O_APPEND). Write everything out. Close the file descriptor. unlink the hard link. Remove the temporary directory. (All of this, by the way, is for an open source project that I am working on. You can view the source of my implementation of this approach here.) Is this procedure safe against symbolic link attacks? For example, is it possible for a malicious process to ensure that the inode for name represents a regular file for the duration of the lstat check, then make the inode a symbolic link with the temp_name hard link now pointing to the new, symbolic link? I am assuming that a malicious process cannot affect temp_name.

    Read the article

  • Capture DDE Data that is being streamed in to a software

    - by user534391
    Hello, I have a trading software that gets data from the internet. I want to capture that tick data. There is one software that has been made by a local develop which is able to do that and it looks like it uses DDE (NDde.dll, NetSQL.dll). I want to write a custom application that does the same. Any pointers how I can check how the data is being streamed and how to capture that data. I don't think it is encrypted, since the other developer would not have been able to decrypt either. I just need to scan how the software is getting the data. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Does using ReadDirectoryChangesW require administrator rights?

    - by Alex Jenter
    The MSDN says that using ReadDirectoryChangesW implies the calling process having the Backup and Restore priviliges. Does this mean that only process launched under administrator account will work correctly? I've tried the following code, it fails to enable the required privileges when running as a restricted user. void enablePrivileges() { enablePrivilege(SE_BACKUP_NAME); enablePrivilege(SE_RESTORE_NAME); } void enablePrivilege(LPCTSTR name) { HANDLE hToken; DWORD status; if (::OpenProcessToken(::GetCurrentProcess(), TOKEN_ADJUST_PRIVILEGES, &hToken)) { TOKEN_PRIVILEGES tp = { 1 }; if( ::LookupPrivilegeValue(NULL, name, &tp.Privileges[0].Luid) ) { tp.Privileges[0].Attributes = SE_PRIVILEGE_ENABLED; BOOL result = ::AdjustTokenPrivileges(hToken, FALSE, &tp, 0, NULL, NULL); verify (result != FALSE); status = ::GetLastError(); } ::CloseHandle(hToken); } } Am I doing something wrong? Is there any workaround for using ReadDirectoryChangesW from a non-administrator user account? It seems that the .NET's FileSystemWatcher can do this. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Flex Inheriting Logged in User

    - by Nick
    I am trying to secure my Flex application within my Java web application. Currently my Java web application, handles logging and managing user accounts and the like. I was wondering if there is a way to essentially share that user credentials with the Flash movie in a secure mechanism? For instance, if you log in, we want you to be able to save items in the Flex application for that user, only if that user is logged in of course. Any ideas? Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Post login execution

    - by Javi
    Hello, I need to do some processing only after the user has successfully logged in the system. I have thought that I can do a RESTful method and setting it as the default-target-url so when the login is successful it goes to this url and then I can redirect to the real index of my web application. <form-login login-page='/login.htm' default-target-url='/home.htm' always-use-default-target='true' /> The problem is that this processing can be executed by calling its URL so it could be executed by any user at any time. I want to make sure it is only executed after login. Is there any way to do this? Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • How to retreive SID's byte array

    - by rursw1
    Hello experts, How can I convert a PSID type into a byte array that contains the byte value of the SID? Something like: PSID pSid; byte sidBytes[68];//Max. length of SID in bytes is 68 if(GetAccountSid( NULL, // default lookup logic AccountName,// account to obtain SID &pSid // buffer to allocate to contain resultant SID ) { ConvertPSIDToByteArray(pSid, sidBytes); } --how should I write the function ConvertPSIDToByteArray? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • How to prevent multiple registrations?

    - by GG.
    I develop a political survey website where anyone can vote once. Obviously I have to prevent multiple registrations for the survey remains relevant. Already I force every user to login with their Google, Facebook or Twitter account. But they can authenticate 3 times if they have an account on each, or authenticate with multiple accounts of the same platform (I have 3 accounts on Google). So I thought also store the IP address, but they can still go through a proxy... I thought also keep the HTTP User Agent with PHP's get_browser(), although they can still change browsers. I can extract the OS with a regex, to change OS is less easier than browsers. And there is also geolocation, for example with the Google Map API. So to summarize, several ideas: 1 / SSO Authentication (I keep the email) 2 / IP Address 3 / HTTP User Agent 4 / Geolocation with an API Have you any other ideas that I did not think? How to embed these tests? Execute in what order? Have you already deploy this kind of solution?

    Read the article

  • Registry remotley hacked win 7 need help tracking the perp

    - by user577229
    I was writing some .VBS code at thhe office that would allow certain file extensions to be downloaded without a warning dialog on a w7x32 system. The system I was writing this on is in a lab on a segmented subnet. All web access is via a proxy server. The only means of accessing my machine is via the internet or from within the labs MSFT AD domain. While writing and testing my code I found a message of sorts. Upon refresing the registry to verify my code changed a dword, instead the message HELLO was written and visible in regedit where the dword value wass called for. I took a screen shot and proceeded to edit my code. This same weird behavior occurred last time I was writing registry code except on another internal server. I understand that remote registry access exists for windows systems. I will block this immediately once I return to the office. What I want to know is, can I trace who made this connection? How would I do this? I suspect the cause of this is the cause of other "odd" behaviors I'm experiencing at work such as losing control of my input director master control for over an hour and unchanged code that all of a sudden fails for no logical region. These failures occur at funny times, whenver I'm about to give a demonstration of my test code. I know this sounds crazy however knowledge of the registry component makes this believable. Once the registry can be accessed, the entire system is compromised. Any help or sanity checking is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Implementing password hashing/salting algorithm from crackstation.net

    - by Mason240
    I am trying to implement a password hashing/salting algorithm from crackstation.net, but I am unsure how implement it. Storing the password upon user registration seems to be as simple as passing the password into create_hash(). $password = create_hash($_POST['Password']; I'm not following how to validate upon user login. validate_password($password, $good_hash) returns either true or false, and takes $password as parameter, so it seems like a no brainer except for the second parameter $good_hash. Where does this param come from? It is my understanding that password is turned into a hash value every time its used, and that the hash value is what is stored and compared. So why would I have both the $password and $good_hash values? Quick overview of the functions: function create_hash($password){ calls pbkdf2() } function validate_password($password, $good_hash){ calls pbkdf2() calls slow_equals() } function slow_equals($a, $b){ } function pbkdf2($algorithm, $password, $salt, $count, $key_length, $raw_output = false){ } Of course a different, better method for this would also be just as helpful. Thank you

    Read the article

  • How do you protect code from leaking outside?

    - by cubex
    Besides open-sourcing your project and legislation, are there ways to prevent, or at least minimize the damages of code leaking outside your company/group? We obviously can't block Internet access (to prevent emailing the code) because programmer's need their references. We also can't block peripheral devices (USB, Firewire, etc.) The code matters most when it has some proprietary algorithms and in-house developed knowledge (as opposed to regular routine code to draw GUIs, connect to databases, etc.), but some applications (like accounting software and CRMs) are just that: complex collections of routine code that are simple to develop in principle, but will take years to write from scratch. This is where leaked code will come in handy to competitors. As far as I see it, preventing leakage relies almost entirely on human process. What do you think? What precautions and measures are you taking? And has code leakage affected you before?

    Read the article

  • How Easy Is It to Hijack Session Vars on GoDaddy (PHP)

    - by yar
    This article states that If your site is run on a shared Web server, be aware that any session variables can easily be viewed by any other users on the same server. On a larger host like GoDaddy, are there really no protections in place against this? Could it really be that easy? If it is that easy, where are the session vars of the other users on my host so I can check them out? Edit: I didn't believe it, but here's my little program which shows that this is true! I wonder if those are really the same as the value stored in the cookies on the users' machine?

    Read the article

  • Handling over-long UTF-8 sequences

    - by Grant McLean
    I've just been reworking my Encoding::FixLatin Perl module to handle over-long utf8 byte sequences and convert them to the shortest normal form. My question is quite simply "is this a bad idea"? A number of sources (including this RFC) suggest that any over-long utf8 should be treated as an error and rejected. They caution against "naive implementations" and leave me with the impression that these things are inherently unsafe. Since the whole purpose of my module is to clean up messy data files with mixed encodings and convert them to nice clean utf8, this seems like just one more thing I can clean up so the application layer doesn't have to deal with it. My code does not concern itself with any semantic meaning the resulting characters might have, it simply converts them into a normalised form. Am I missing something. Is there a hidden danger I haven't considered?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267  | Next Page >