Search Results

Search found 41147 results on 1646 pages for 'database security'.

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 304/1646 | < Previous Page | 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311  | Next Page >

  • Bad to be logged in as admin all the time?

    - by poke
    At the office where I work, three of the other members of the IT staff are logged into their computers all the time with accounts that are members of the domain administrators group. I have serious concerns about being logged in with admin rights (either local or for the domain). As such, for everyday computer use, I use an account that just has regular user privelages. I also have an different account that is part of the domain admins group. I use this account when I need to do something that requires elevated privilages on my computer, one of the servers, or on another user's computer. What is the best practice here? Should network admins be logged in with rights to the entire network all the time (or even their local computer for that matter)?

    Read the article

  • Good infrastructure design questions for software developers?

    - by JakeRobinson
    Building on Jeff's blog post titled Vampires (Programmers) versus Werewolves (Sysadmins) From my perspective, the whole point of the company is to talk about what we're doing. Getting things done is important, of course, but we have to stop occasionally to write up what we're doing, how we're doing it, and why we're even doing it in the first place -- including all our doubts and misgivings and concerns. So, what are some questions you ask your software developers when they request a server?

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2010 OWA with Client Certificates

    - by Christian
    I have enabled Client Certificate Authentication for Exchange 2010 through IIS7 and the users are prompted to choose their User Certificate when they log in, but they are all then presented with the following error message Request Url: https://<domain_name>:443/owa/ User host address: <server_ip_address> OWA version: 14.1.355.2 Exception Exception type: System.NullReferenceException Exception message: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. Call stack Microsoft.Exchange.Clients.Owa.Core.RequestDispatcher.GetUserIdentities(OwaContext owaContext, OwaIdentity& logonIdentity, OwaIdentity& mailboxIdentity, Boolean& isExplicitLogon, Boolean& isAlternateMailbox, ExchangePrincipal& logonExchangePrincipal) Microsoft.Exchange.Clients.Owa.Core.RequestDispatcher.InternalDispatchRequest(OwaContext owaContext) Microsoft.Exchange.Clients.Owa.Core.RequestDispatcher.DispatchRequest(OwaContext owaContext) Microsoft.Exchange.Clients.Owa.Core.OwaRequestEventInspector.OnPostAuthorizeRequest(Object sender, EventArgs e) System.Web.HttpApplication.SyncEventExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute() System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously) The method I followed to enable Certificate authentiaction was from this post: http://www.miru.ch/2011/04/how-to-enable-certificate-based-authentication-on-exchange-2010/ Any ideas? Google isn't being very helpful

    Read the article

  • .htaccess to deny access to most xml files

    - by CEich
    I recently had a Joomla site hacked, so I'm trying to harden the site a bit. There's a section in the recommended .htaccess that restricts outside access to the xml files that come with extensions. However, it also keeps my sitemap.xml file from being accessed. How do I allow a certain file whiles keeping the rest? here's the default code: <Files ~ "\.xml$"> Order allow,deny Deny from all Satisfy all </Files> and my modification that caused a 500 error: <Files ~ "(?!sitemap)\.xml$"> Order allow,deny Deny from all Satisfy all </Files>

    Read the article

  • hosting people asking for my account username and password to enable curl and socket function only for me

    - by Jayapal Chandran
    I have hosted my site in a shared environment. My hosting people disabled socket function all together. and they said that we can enable only for you if i given a written statement. I did but they asked for my control panel login details so they will run some kind of script to enable it. Is it right for the hosting company to ask for credentials. They have the total control so why cant they do it? Edit: Before six months many websites in their server got hacked. So they think it would be because of socket functions and had disabled it. They say they can enable it for specific users who do programming using that and that is by email request.

    Read the article

  • Correctly setting up UFW on Ubuntu Server 10 LTS which has Nginx, FastCGI and MySQL?

    - by littlejim84
    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

  • Identifying mail account used in CRAM-MD5 transaction

    - by ManiacZX
    I suppose this is one of those where the tool for identifying the problem is also the tool used for taking advantage of it. I have a mail server that I am seeing emails that spam is being sent through it. It is not an open relay, the messages in question are being sent by someone authenticating to the smtp with CRAM-MD5. However, the logs only capture the actual data passed, which has been hashed so I cannot see what user account is being used. My suspicion is a simple username/password combo or a user account's password has otherwise been compromised, but I cannot do much about it without knowing what user it is. Of course I can block the IP that is doing it, but that doesn't fix the real problem. I have both the CRAM-MD5 Base64 challenge string and the hashed client auth string containing the username, password and challenge string. I am looking for a way to either reverse this (which I haven't been able to find any information on) or otherwise I suppose I need a dictionary attack tool designed for CRAM-MD5 to run through two lists, one for username and one for password and the constant of the challenge string until it finds a matching result of the authentication string I have logged. Any information on reversing using the data I have logged, a tool to identify it or any alternative methods you have used for this situation would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • mod_security2 and w00tw00t attacks

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have a server with apache and i recently installed mod_config2 because I get attacked a lot by this: My apache version is apache v 2.2.3 and i user mod_security2.c [Wed Mar 24 02:35:41 2010] [error] [client 88.191.109.38] client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:) [Wed Mar 24 02:47:31 2010] [error] [client 202.75.211.90] client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:) [Wed Mar 24 02:47:49 2010] [error] [client 95.228.153.177] client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:) [Wed Mar 24 02:48:03 2010] [error] [client 88.191.109.38] client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:) I tried configuring mod_security2 like this: SecFilterSelective REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind" SecFilterSelective REQUEST_URI "\w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS" SecFilterSelective REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS" SecFilterSelective REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:" SecFilterSelective REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:)" The thing in mod_security2 is that SecFilterSelective can not be used, it gives me erros. Instead i use a rule like this: SecRule REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind" SecRule REQUEST_URI "\w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS" SecRule REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS" SecRule REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:" SecRule REQUEST_URI "w00tw00t.at.ISC.SANS.DFind:)" Even this does not work. I don't know what to do anymore. Anyone have any advice?

    Read the article

  • win2008 r2 IIS7.5 - setting up a custom user for an application pool, and trust issues

    - by Ken Egozi
    Scenario: blank win2008 r2 install the goal was to have a couple of sites running with isolated pool and dedicated users A new folder for a new website - c:\web\siteA\wwwroot, with the app (asp.net) deployed there in the /bin folder created a user named "appuser" and added it to the IIS_USERS group gave the website folder read and execute permissions for IIS_USERS and the appuser created the IIS site. set the app=pool identity to the appuser now I'm getting YSOD telling me that the trust-level is too low - SecurityException: That assembly does not allow partially trusted callers Added <trust level="Full" /> on the web-config, did not help changing the app-pool user to Administrator makes the site run Setting "anonymous user identity" to either IUSR or the app pool identity makes no difference any idea? is there a "step by step" howto guide for setting up users for isolated app pools on IIS7.5?

    Read the article

  • Getting Server 2008 R2 to ignore all traffic from Internet-facing NIC, leaving it to a VM

    - by Wolvenmoon
    I got in to Server 2008 R2 via Dreamspark and would like to start learning on it. I don't have much option but to put it on a system sitting between the Internet and my home LAN due to electricity bills and the fact that 3 computers in an 11x11 space in 102 degree weather is pretty stygian. Currently I use a ClearOS gateway to manage everything, what I'd like to do is take my server 2008 R2 box, which has two NICs, and drop it at the head of my network. I'd want Server 2008 R2 to ignore all traffic on the external facing NIC and pass it to a virtual ClearOS gateway, and to put all its Internet traffic through its other NIC - which will face the rest of my network and be the default gateway for it. The theory is to keep the potentially vulnerable Server 2008 R2 install as tucked behind a Linux box as possible, without sacrificing too much performance. This is a home network that occasionally hosts dedicated game servers and voice chat servers, so most malicious activity is in the form of drive by non-targeted attacks, however, I don't trust Windows Server because I don't know the OS well enough, yet. So, three questions: How do I do this, am I going to be reasonably more secure doing this than if I just let the Server 2008 R2 rig handle all the network traffic and DHCP (not an option), and should I virtualize the Server 2008 R2 rig instead and if so in what? (Core 2 Duo e6600 w/ 5 gigs usable RAM)

    Read the article

  • Bad ways to secure wireless network c

    - 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

  • What are the pros/cons of blocking a program from running in %appdata%, %temp%, etc.?

    - by poke
    While researching ways to prevent CryptoLocker, I saw a forum post that advised using Group Policy Objects (GPO) and/or antivirus software to block run access in the following locations: %appdata% %localappdata% %temp% %UserProfile% Compressed archives Obviously, anything written in a forum should be taken with caution. I do see advantages to do doing this, though, primarily because malware likes to execute out of these locations. Of course, this could impact legitimate programs as well. What are the drawbacks to blocking run access to these locations? What are the advantages?

    Read the article

  • Penetration testing - common examples?

    - by Mirek
    Hi, I was charged to do some basic penetration testing on our system. I tried to find some favoured practices but I was not successful. I guess SYN attack is retired (no NT here). Could anyone advice some basic steps of what to test in order to proceed at least very basic penetration test? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Most secure way of connecting an intranet to an external server

    - by Eitan
    I have an internal server that hosts an asp.net intranet application. I want to keep it completely and utterly secure and private however we need to expose some information through a WCF service to another server which hosts our external websites which CAN be accessed by the public. What is the best way to pass information between the two servers with regards to an IT setup, while keeping the intranet in house server completely secure and inaccessible? I've heard VPN was the way to go but I wanted to be sure this was the safest way. Another question what would be the most secure way of passing data in the WCF service?

    Read the article

  • Audit success in event log from not administrator IP - is that immediately a hack success indicator?

    - by Valentin Kuzub
    I checked event log today and between mass of failed audit events I found some successes which originated from not my country. However they look a little weird and no process is specified, while when I logon using RDP it says winlogon.exe I am wondering whether that means my system was compromised or there are good variants and it doesnt mean its all that bad. I am using a VPS solution if thats useful.

    Read the article

  • How do I access a shared folder using credentials other than the ones I logged in with?

    - by George Sealy
    I have a lab full of Windows 7 machines, and a shared login (user360) that all my students use. I also have a shared folder that they can all have read/write access to (for moving files around easily). My problem is that I also want to be able to create a shared folder for each student for submitting assignments. I can set up a shared folder with permissions for just a single user, and not the 'user360' account. The problem is, when I'm logged in as user360, and I try to open the 'StudentA', Windows never asks me for alternate credentials, it just refuses access because the user360 account is not allowed access. Can anyone suggest a fix for this?

    Read the article

  • Block Google requests to 16k using pf firewall

    - by atmosx
    I'd like to block access to Google search using PF after the threshold of 17500 requests (connection established) in 24h, from a host running FreeBSD 9. What I came up with, after reading pf-faq is this rule: pass out on $net proto tcp from any to 'www.google.com' port www flags S/SA keep state (max-src-conn 200, max-src-conn-rate 17500/86400) NOTE: 86400 are 24h in seconds. The rule should work, but PF is smart enough to know that www.google.com resolves in 5 different IPs. So my pfctl -sr output gives me this: pass out on vte0 inet proto tcp from any to 173.194.44.81 port = http flags S/SA keep state (source-track rule, max-src-conn 200, max-src-conn-rate 17500/86400, src.track 86400) pass out on vte0 inet proto tcp from any to 173.194.44.82 port = http flags S/SA keep state (source-track rule, max-src-conn 200, max-src-conn-rate 17500/86400, src.track 86400) pass out on vte0 inet proto tcp from any to 173.194.44.83 port = http flags S/SA keep state (source-track rule, max-src-conn 200, max-src-conn-rate 17500/86400, src.track 86400) pass out on vte0 inet proto tcp from any to 173.194.44.80 port = http flags S/SA keep state (source-track rule, max-src-conn 200, max-src-conn-rate 17500/86400, src.track 86400) pass out on vte0 inet proto tcp from any to 173.194.44.84 port = http flags S/SA keep state (source-track rule, max-src-conn 200, max-src-conn-rate 17500/86400, src.track 86400) PF creates 5 different rules, 1 for each IP that Google resolves. However I have the sense - without being 100% sure, I didn't had the chance to test it - that the number 17500/86400 applies for each IP. If that's the case - please confirm - then it's not what I want. In pf-faq there's another option called source-track-global: source-track This option enables the tracking of number of states created per source IP address. This option has two formats: + source-track rule - The maximum number of states created by this rule is limited by the rule's max-src-nodes and max-src-states options. Only state entries created by this particular rule count toward the rule's limits. + source-track global - The number of states created by all rules that use this option is limited. Each rule can specify different max-src-nodes and max-src-states options, however state entries created by any participating rule count towards each individual rule's limits. The total number of source IP addresses tracked globally can be controlled via the src-nodes runtime option. I tried to apply source-track-global in the above rule without success. How can I use this option in order to achieve my goal? Any thoughts or comments are more than welcome since I'm an amateur and don't fully understand PF yet. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why would sshd allow root logins by default?

    - by The Journeyman geek
    I'm currently working on hardening my servers against hacking- amongst other things, i'm getting a load of attempts to log on as root over ssh. While i've implemented fail2ban, i'm wondering, why root logons would be allowed by default to start with? Even with non sudo based distros, i can always log on as a normal user and switch - so i'm wondering is there any clear advantage to allowing root logons on ssh, or it just something no one bothers to change?

    Read the article

  • Securing data sent to an unencrypted WiFi AP

    - by David Parunakian
    The business plan of a project I'm involved in assumes selling certain WiFi-enabled devices to end users. All these devices originally have an unencrypted connection and a standard SSID. The problem is that although the user can connect to it and set both a new SSID and a WPA passphrase, these are being sent to the AP in plain text and thus can be intercepted by anyone nearby with a sniffer. What's the best solution to this problem, and why? Initially set up an encrypted wireless network at the device and supply the user with a printed passphrase Buy an SSL certificate for the AP's default IP address or local domain name (the APs aren't supposed to work as a router and have a captive portal & dnsmasq installed, so all of them can pretend to be myunit.example.com, as far as I understand) Something different Thank you.

    Read the article

  • What can I do to prevent my user folder from being tampered with by malicious software?

    - by Tom Wijsman
    Let's assume some things: Back-ups do run every X minutes, yet the things I save should be permanent. There's a firewall and virus scanner in place, yet there happens to be a zero day attack on me. I am using Windows. (Although feel free to append Linux / OS X parts to your answer) Here is the problem Any software can change anything inside my user folder. Tampering with the files could cost me my life, whether it's accessing / modifying or wiping them. So, what I want to ask is: Is there a permission-based way to disallow programs from accessing my files in any way by default? Extending on the previous question, can I ensure certain programs can only access certain folders? Are there other less obtrusive ways than using Comodo? Or can I make Comodo less obtrusive? For example, the solution should be proof against (DO NOT RUN): del /F /S /Q %USERPROFILE%

    Read the article

  • How to set up a linux user that can only access a repository via ssh?

    - by GJ
    I have a mercurial repository on a secure server, to which I want to grant secure access to an external user. I added for him a user account and publickey ssh authentication so that now he could push/pull changesets via ssh. My question is: how can I make this new user account completely disabled from doing anything or accessing any data on the server other than accessing the repository? E.g. he shouldn't even have the possibility to enter an interactive shell session. Thanks

    Read the article

  • ESET Remote Administrator Console showing infected files on a client, but threat log is empty

    - by Aron Rotteveel
    We recently deployed ESET NOD32 Antivirus on our small domain network and use the Remote Adminstrator to manage everything remotely. On a recent full system scan, one of the clients shows 10 infected files of which 4 have been cleaned in the scan log. The strange thing, however, is that the threat log is empty. Is there any reason why the threat log is empty? What has happened to the 6 remaining uncleaned files? Where can I view information on what files are infected and what they have been infected with? I know this can be done through the scan log properties screen, but with 958790 files scanned, I obviously do not want to browse through this list. Any help is appreciated.

    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 | 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311  | Next Page >