Search Results

Search found 26207 results on 1049 pages for 'django users'.

Page 310/1049 | < Previous Page | 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317  | Next Page >

• What kinds of protections against viruses does Linux provide out of the box for the average user?

  - by ChocoDeveloper

  I know others have asked this, but I have other questions related to this. In particular, I'm concerned about the damage that the virus can do the user itself (his files), not the OS in general nor other users of the same machine. This question came to my mind because of that ransomware virus that is encrypting machines all over the world, and then asking the user to send a payment in Bitcoin if he wants to recover his files. I have already received and opened the email that is supposed to contain the virus, so I guess I didn't do that bad because nothing happened. But would I have survived if I opened the attachment and it was aimed at Linux users? I guess not. One of the advantages is that files are not executable by default right after downloading them. Is that just a bad default in Windows and could be fixed with a proper configuration? As a Linux user, I thought my machine was pretty secure by default, and I was even told that I shouldn't bother installing an antivirus. But I have read some people saying that the most important (or only?) difference is that Linux is just less popular, so almost no one writes viruses for it. Is that right? What else can I do to be safe from this kind of ransomware virus? Not automatically executing random files from unknown sources seems to be more than enough, but is it? I can't think of many other things a user can do to protect his own files (not the OS, not other users), because he has full permissions on them.

  Read the article

• VMWare steals IP addresses

  - by Ishan Amin

  I'm having a peculiar problem, that I think I have narrowed down to VMware. For the past one year, every once in a while we lose internet connection and not all users (about 10 users) go down at the same time, its usually one-by-one. First someone will call me and say "Internet is down" and then we would go reset the router and modem and switch and it would be working again for a while, then go down again without any pattern or replicatable sequence. We'd go repeat the steps again to get everyone in the office running again. We called our Internet Service Provider and they constantly say, We see your modem and we see your router and from thier end everything is OK. we replaced our router and switch and modem, twice! Last friday, it dawned upon me, that everytime we turn on a VMware machine, this sequence of taking everyone down starts, which also explains the message that my users get for "IP Conflict Found" So we do alot of VMware testing and lo and behold, it takes my Internet down. My Yahoo and Gtalk would continue working but www is down when the VMware machines are started. I do use bridged networking to all the VMware machines, but I dont know what else to set it at. now, sorry for this long rambling but anyone have any clue on how to stop this? thanks IA

  Read the article

• SVN, Samba and Symbolic Links. How to get them all to play together?

  - by Camsoft

  I've got a website project under version control that relies on files from an unversioned directory on the same server via Symbolic Links. I'm currently storing the symbolic links in the repository. The idea is that if someone checks out a working copy on to the same server they can edit and test the working copy of the project before committing it back to the repository. When they checkout their working copy it successfully sets up the symlinks so that the entire site works when testing. The users that work on the project are Windows users, so I've set a samba shares on the server and then mapped them to network drives in Windows. People can edit their working copies directly on the server via network shares and then test them in the web browser before committing their changes back to the repository via TortoiseSVN. The Problem The problem I have is that Samba resolves the symlinks as expected but when a user tries to commit their changes back to the repository, TortoiseSVN thinks the linked files are part of the project and tries to commit the target files to the repository and not the symlinks themselves. I tried turning off symlink support in samba which means that the linked files cannot be resolved as I don't really want people to have access to the linked files nor do I want to import the linked files in the repository. The problem with this is that I get Can't stat '\webserver\projects\working\project\symlinked_file.php'. Access is denied Apart from the symlink problem everything else works 100% perfectly. Users can either checkout website projects to their machine and work on them (but can't test) or checkout them out to their space on the dev web server and work on them and fully test. So I don't want to change the workflow process, I just need a solution to the symbolic link issue. Many thanks. Originally posted on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2400917/svn-samba-and-symbolic-links-how-to-get-them-all-to-play-together

  Read the article

• Mod_rewrite to eliminate query strings

  - by Greg Frommer

  Hi everyone, I have been working on this for a while but I'm not finding exactly what I am looking for. I am writing a webapp to let my users create and publish pieces of HTML content in a domain and URL folder structure of their choosing. All of the content and requested URL structures are stored in a database. I have all of the code in my index.php (in the root folder) to access the database content, and based on the server name (and hopefully folder structure) will pick out the proper content from the DB and display it to the end-users browser. So my situation looks like this: www.test.com/index.php?id=123234345 ... will display the proper page, but I want my users to be able to define a unique "page name" instead of using the numeric index (also I want to hide the /index.php part) so what I would like the end-user to see is: www.test.com/arbitrary-unique-keyword/keyword2/keyword3 which will invoke the index.php page in the root folder. Then I will use the PHP $_SERVER['PATH_INFO'] variable to match the requested folder structure up with the proper content in my database and display that. All the material I have found so far expects me to hard code parts of the folder structure into the rules.... but I think I want something simpler (perhaps). So the question in a nutshell: How do I use mod_rewrite to allow all "non-existent" folder paths be passed through to a main index.php residing in the root folder? (For all paths that DO exist, like for calls to images... I want those to succeed and not be directed to the index.php obviously) Thanks everyone, please let me know if I can clear anything up.

  Read the article

• Drupal 7: One-time user account

  - by Noob

  I'm going to create a survey in Drupal 7 with the webform module, installed on a debian system which may be adapted in every way. The users (personally known, approx. 120) doing that survey will walk into a room and complete the survey in browsers on different computers. After that, they'll leave the room and other persons will enter, complete the survey on the same computers and so on. Each user may enter only one submission. The process needs to be anonymous, i. e. I mustn't have any idea of who did wich submission. My current solution is to generate random one-time-passwords and hand out one password per user (without noting who got which password). Within the survey there will be a password field where the one-time-password is entered. The value is checked by webform to be unique. I'll get the data via csv or Excel and verify the passwords manually in excel by comparing them to the list of valid passwords. The problem is: I don't like the idea of manually generating the password list, copying it to excel and doing a manual check. That's a good idea for one-time-use, but we're going to repeat the survey every once in a while. I'd rather generate one-time-logins (like user0001/fdlkjewf, user0002/dfrefnnr, ...) for each survey, hand them out to the users and let drupal/debian/whatever check whether a submission is valid or not. Do you have any idea how to batch-generate about 120 users with one-time-passwords in Drupal 7 and verify that each user may submit the form only once? Do you even have a better idea how to accomplish the task within the intranet? Thank you for your help.

  Read the article

• Cannot Install Phusion Passenger 3.0.13 with Nginx 1.2.1

  - by LightBe Corp

  I installed gem Passenger which installed 3.0.13. Then I executed passenger-install-nginx-module which is what the Nginx instructions on http://www.modrails.com said to do. It installs the latest stable version which is 1.2.1 according to the Nginx official wiki page. I said to install Nginx to /usr/local/nginx (which is the default if you go to the nginx wiki website). I get the following errors: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "_pcre_free_study", referenced from: _ngx_pcre_free_studies in ngx_regex.o ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[1]: *** [objs/nginx] Error 1 make: *** [build] Error 2 -------------------------------------------- It looks like something went wrong Please read our Users guide for troubleshooting tips: /Users/server1/.rvm/gems/[email protected]/gems/passenger-3.0.13/doc/Users guide Nginx.html If that doesn't help, please use our support facilities at: http://www.modrails.com/ We'll do our best to help you. I have done searches for several hours trying to find a resolution. I tried the Google Group for Phusion Passenger but did not find anything. I do not know if there is a mismatch in version numbers or not. The documentation says nothing about this error.

  Read the article

• Legal IT documents

  - by TylerShads

  I have been wondering this past week because my big boss told me to start keeping track of all the things I have fixed, how to fix them, etc. Which is reasonable and have been doing anyway. But then a related question came to mind. What kind of documentation should I have on hand as far as users go. More specifically I am talking in terms of EULA, ToC, etc (correct me please if I'm using the wrong terms) Or more specifically a policy, so to speak, for the users and such. Can't say I'm a legal expert, otherwise I'd be a lawyer. The environment the users are in is pretty laid back so I don't forsee a problem. But assume that there should ever arise a problem, what should I have written up/have on hand? EDIT: I really should have noted that we are a medical transport facility and have patient records so I know that something must be done there to comply with HIPAA policies I believe. I do like what anthonysomerset said about the "If I get by a bus" Scenario and want to apply it not only to the documentation I am currently writing but also for if say an employee were to steal info from the server or edge cases, theft, etc. As far as our staff, its relatively small as in a single HR person, no legal department aside from the 2 owners' lawyers and me being the only IT person on staff with a guy who is no more than a mac superuser.

  Read the article

• What is the peak theoretical WiFi G user density? [closed]

  - by Bigbio2002

  I've seen a few WiFi capacity planning questions, and this one is related, but hopefully different enough not to be closed. Also, this is related specifically to 802.11g, but a similar question could be made for N. In order to squeeze more WiFi users into a space, the transmit power on the APs need to be reduced and the APs squeezed closer together. My question is, how far can you practically take this before the network becomes unusable? There will come a point where the transmit power is so weak that nobody will actually be able to pick up a connection, or be constantly roaming to/from APs spaced a few feet apart as they walk around. There are also only 3 available channels to use as well, which is a factor to consider. After determining the peak AP density, then multiply by users-per-AP, which should be easier to find out. After factoring all of this in and running some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I'd like to be able to get a figure of "XX users per 10ft^2" or something. This can be considered the physical limit of WiFi, and will keep people from asking about getting 3,000 people in a ballroom conference on WiFi. Can anyone with WiFi experience chime in, or better yet, provide some calculations for a more accurate figure? Assumptions: Let's assume an ideal environment with no reflection (think of a big, square, open room, with the APs spaced out on a plane), APs are placed on the ceiling so humans won't absorb the waves, and the only interference are from the APs themselves and the devices. As for what devices specifically, that's irrelevant for the first point of the question (AP density, so only channel and transmit power should matter). User experience: Wikipedia states that Wireless G has about 22Mbps maximum effective throughput, or about 2.75MB/s. For the purpose of this question, anything below 100KB/s per user can be deemed to be a poor user experience. As for roaming, I'll assume the user is standing in the same place, so hopefully that will be a non-issue.

  Read the article

• Windows Server - share files without access for administrator

  - by Pawel

  We have a MS Windows Server 2008 R8 based server that is administrated by our IT department. We would like to achieve two things simultaneously: A folder on the server, containing several thousand files (new files added frequently) that is accessible to some ActiveDirectory users (e.g. board of directors) but is not accessible by IT department employees IT department employees still maintain rights to administrate the server, including installing new software and services We already checked some solutions: Using NTFS access rights. Unfortunately IT (members of "Administrators" group) can set themselves as new owners of the files and change the permissions so that they gain access to the files. Enabling EFS. Unfortunately even if you do not allow IT to access files, they still can disable EFS completely because they have administrative rights. Moreover as far as I know you have to manually add permissions for all users but the owner for each new file - very inconvenient. Creating a new role for the IT department that has all the privileges apart from taking ownership of files. Unfortunately if you're not a member of the Administrators group, you cannot install new software, no matter what privileges you add to the role. TrueCrypt - nice free encryption software, but with poor sharing capabilities. You can either mount an encryption container on the server (and then IT has access to its contents) or you mount them locally but only one user can mount it for writing. AxCrypt - free encryption software that enables file-by-file encryption on the server. There are some disadvantages though - you have to manually encrypt each new file added. The files have their extensions changes. You can only set one password for all files (so all users have to know this one password). Any other ideas? Our budget is limited so enterprise-class software from Symantec or PGP would probably be not an option.

  Read the article

• UACCEEventLog 301 Filling Event Logs

  - by rjt

  After pushing out clients for the MS Application Compatibility Toolkit on our domain via GPO, UACCEEventLog 301 occurs a few times per second in the event log. Several Thousand per hour. One test i need to do is logon with Administrator to see if these events go away while Admin, but of course that is not a fix. This is only part of the event log entry, but is the most readable and clearly indicates yet another problem with Antivirus software. But still no fix. Originally, i posted this In Words and Bytes, but then edited it to make it much easier to read. LocalMachine\Users do have Read Access to this key. For a test, i added "Domain Users" but there are many more events for other parts of the registry and for Administrators. <XML> <TYPE> UacceRegistryVirtualization </TYPE> <EXENAME>smcgui.exe</EXENAME> <EXEPATH>c:\program files\symantec\symantec endpoint protection </EXEPATH> <APINAME>RegOpenKeyA</APINAME> <REGKEYNAME> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE \Symantec\Symantec Endpoint Protection\AV\Storages \SymHeurProcessProtection\RealTimeScan\0 </REGKEYNAME> <RESTRICTEDBYACL>FALSE</RESTRICTEDBYACL> <DESIREDACCESS>MAXIMUM_ALLOWED</DESIREDACCESS> <REGVALUENAME></REGVALUENAME> <REGVALUETYPE>0x00000000</REGVALUETYPE> <REGVALUEDATA></REGVALUEDATA> <CURRENTGROUP>Users</CURRENTGROUP> </XML>

  Read the article

• Anonymous file sharing without login window, from Windows 7 server to XP clients

  - by Niten

  I'm trying to provide machines on a small LAN with read-only, anonymous access to files shared from a Windows 7 workstation (let's call it WIN7SVR). In particular, I don't want clients to have to deal with a login window when they navigate to, e.g., \\WIN7SVR in Windows Explorer, but we do not have a domain and synchronizing accounts between the server and clients would be intractable. There are both Windows 7 and Windows XP clients that need access to these shares. I got this working for Windows 7 clients by just enabling the Guest account on WIN7SVR and setting appropriate share permissions. Other Windows 7 machines automatically try logging in as Guest, it seems, so their users don't have to deal with the login window. The problem is with the XP clients--they can access the server if the user enters "Guest" in the login window, but I don't want users to have to do that. So from what I gather, in my limited understanding of Windows file sharing, this boils down to granting null sessions access to file shares on WIN7SVR. But I've had no success so far on that front. I've tried all the following in the local group policy editor on the Windows 7 server: Set Network access: Let Everyone permissions apply to anonymous users to Enabled Set Network access: Restrict anonymous access to Named Pipes and Shares to Disabled Added the names of corresponding shares to Network access: Shares that can be accessed anonymously Added "ANONYMOUS LOGON" to Access this computer from the network under User Rights Assignment Any advice would be highly appreciated... I'm mostly a Unix guy, so I feel somewhat out of my league with Windows file sharing. I do understand that any sort of anonymous access to file shares isn't generally ideal from a security standpoint, but it's the most practical solution for us in this case, and access to our network is well enough controlled that share-level security isn't a concern.

  Read the article

• Is there a way to prevent password expiration when user has no password?

  - by Eric DANNIELOU

  Okay, we all care about security so users should change their passwords on a regular basis (who said passwords are like underwear?). On redhat and centos (5.x and 6.x), it's possible to make every real user password expires after 45 days, and warn them 7 days before. /etc/shadow entry then looks like : testuser:$6$m8VQ7BWU$b3UBovxC5b9p2UxLxyT0QKKgG1RoOHoap2CV7HviDJ03AUvcFTqB.yiV4Dn7Rj6LgCBsJ1.obQpaLVCx5.Sx90:15588:1:45:7::: It works very well and most users often change their passwords. Some users find it convenient not to use any password but ssh public key (and I'd like to encourage them). Then after 45 days they can't log in as they forgot their password and are asked to change it. Is there a way to prevent password expiration if and only if password is disabled? Setting testuser:!!:15588:1:45:7::: in /etc/shadow did not work : testuser is asked to change his password after 45 days. Of course, setting back password expiration to 99999 days works but : It requires extra work. Security auditors might not be happy. Is there a system wide parameter that would prompt the user to change expired password only if he really has one ?

  Read the article

• Automating first time login process in Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 virtual machine

  - by George Durzi

  I have a set of Windows 2008 Server R2 SP1 Enterprise Edition virtual machines running in Hyper-V. The host server has 64GB of RAM and two SSD drives (one drive for the host OS, and the second one for the VMs). The virtual machines are as follows: Domain Controller: 4GB RAM Exchange Server: 4GB RAM Terminal Services: 50GB RAM We use this setup for a travelling training class where users remote desktop to one of the VMs - let's call it the Terminal Services or "TS" VM - where tools such as Visual Studio are installed. The students go through some labs on the TS VMs in Visual Studio. Overall, this setup works great. However, when users are collectively logging in for the first time, the VM really struggles to keep up while all the user profiles are created. It can take some users up to 10 minutes to login. The number varies from 30 to 40 students. A workaround to this would be to manually remote desktop to the TS virtual machine using all the accounts to ensure that the local profile is created in advance. I'm looking for a way to automate the first time login process on the TS virtual machine. I am envisioning iterating through the accounts in a certain Active Directory OU, and then somehow initiating a remote desktop session to the TS VM to log them in for the first time. Are there ways to do this? Thanks

  Read the article

• What are the "least legally restrictive" well-connected countries to host a website?

  - by monster

  NB: I am aware that this question is subjective, as it can't be defined precisely, but the answers should still be "objective": Country name, and what makes it legally safer. EDIT: A) I am located in Germany. B) I am NOT looking for a place to offer pirated Software/Media; no binary on my site, except "profile icon". Hello! I want to start publishing "social" websites / apps, and I found that the biggest initial problem is this: Any and all services I have to depend on, including Domain Registrar, DNS provider, Server/Cloud Provider, CDN Provider, ... even my Insurance Agent, basically say that they can "throw me out" if my website contains "unacceptable" content. It's always phrased in such a way that basically anything can fall under "unacceptable" content. This is very frustrating because you just can't fully control what users post on your "social website", and you so you basically have to expect when you go to bed that your site is going to be gone when you wake up. I've heard a lot of horror stories about this. Since the "Terms Of Service" of all those providers are foremost to protect themselves from legal actions, and those legal actions depend on the country where they are located, it seems like the first step is to find which country is the "safest" to locate a site. "Safest" being defined as, where I am least likely to get in legal trouble with the local authorities, if some user posts something unacceptable in some way. The main restriction is that it should also be a "well-connected" country, because there is no point in being "safe", if my users can't get to my sites, or the latency is unacceptable. I am targeting the English speaking people in any country as my future users.

  Read the article

• Is it possible for the Subversion Apache module to serve html files with an html content-type without using the svn:mime-type property?

  - by Martin Pain

  I am aware that if you set the svn:mime-type Subversion property on a .html file to text/html then when viewing the file in a browser through the Subversion module in Apache httpd it will be served with a Content-Type: text/html header, enabling the browser to render it as HTML rather than plain text. However, I am looking for a way to do this without using the svn:mime-type property. I'm aware that you can configure your svn client to automatically add the property - this is not what I want, as I do not want to ensure all users have these settings. I'm also aware that I could create a pre-commit hook that rejects the commit if the properties are not set, in order to force users to set the property - I might fall back to that, but I'm looking for something less intrusive. I'm also aware that I could use a post-commit hook to add the properties automatically on the server-side. I'd rather not do that (as users then have to update immediately after their commit, and it's not trivial to write) - I'm looking for a better alternative. Perhaps something with rewrite rules in the Apache server?

  Read the article

• Use WSUS without client configuration

  - by sc911

  Hello *, is there any way to let client-PCs use the local WSUS-server without having to configure them? What we need is a system to update PCs before they are delivered to the users. So the WSUS-server is accessible only within our lab, not later on at the users place. We'd like to use WSUS because it will fasten up the download very much. And we don't like to modify the clients as those changes might be forgotten to remove and then at the users place no update will be possible. So the easiest way would be, if one could redirect the normal Microsoft update, but I'm pretty sure that this will not be possible as this update will not be WSUS compliant. An other option I thought of might be, that the DHCP delivers an extra option telling the clients where to get the updates. But I could not find any information about this, so it looks like that this isn't possible too. So, is there any way? Or will it be easier to use a little script to change the WSUS-entries automatically? Regards sc911

  Read the article

• Roaming Profiles & Redirected Folders - storage consumption? offline files and caching?

  - by Ben Swinburne

  I understand the concepts of both roaming profiles and folder redirection and have used both separately before. I am about to set up a network from scratch and would ideally like to use both for the following reasons primarily Roaming profiles allow users to log on to any machine and have their profile Redirected profiles allow users to have their My Documents and Desktop etc backed up without the need to log off at the end of the day. The servers can run their backups overnight and there are no missing files due to the user not logging off. Redirected profiles largely alleviate the slow log in times caused by large profiles. My question is if some of the folders are redirected and therefore not part of the roaming profile what happens on machines which truly roam (i.e. laptops)? If there's offline files or a cache does this mean that the problem whereby a user has to log off comes back? By having them both enabled, is there any duplication i.e. if I have a users$ share and a profiles$ share would I have Desktop twice for example?

  Read the article

• Server configration for our website [duplicate]

  - by Varun Varunesh

  This question already has an answer here: Can you help me with my capacity planning? 2 answers We are a start-up and 6 month back we have launched our beta version website. Now we are in a phase of building our website and web-services for the final product. This website will be based on PHP, Python, MySql database and with wamp server. Right now in the beta version we are using Azure VM for hosting, with configuration of 786MB RAM and Shared CPU. We have 200 avg users daily coming to our website. Now we are trying to increase the number of users from 200 to 1500 daily users. And I am thinking our server should have capability to handle at least 100 concurrent user. Also we have developed web-services for our mobile-apps. Which can also increase loads on the sever. So here are the question that takes me here, I am pretty much confused about whether to go with shared hosting or VM based hosting. If VM, then what configuration will be best for our requirement (as I discussed above) ? Currently our VM is a Windows based server and its very simple to manage, So other than cost factor why should I go for Linux based sever? What other factor should I keep in mind while choosing the server as per our requirement ?

  Read the article

• Windows Server - share files without access for administrator

  - by Pawel

  We have a MS Windows Server 2008 R8 based server that is administrated by our IT department. We would like to achieve two things simultaneously: A folder on the server, containing several thousand files (new files added frequently) that is accessible to some ActiveDirectory users (e.g. board of directors) but is not accessible by IT department employees IT department employees still maintain rights to administrate the server, including installing new software and services We already checked some solutions: Using NTFS access rights. Unfortunately IT (members of "Administrators" group) can set themselves as new owners of the files and change the permissions so that they gain access to the files. Enabling EFS. Unfortunately even if you do not allow IT to access files, they still can disable EFS completely because they have administrative rights. Moreover as far as I know you have to manually add permissions for all users but the owner for each new file - very inconvenient. Creating a new role for the IT department that has all the privileges apart from taking ownership of files. Unfortunately if you're not a member of the Administrators group, you cannot install new software, no matter what privileges you add to the role. TrueCrypt - nice free encryption software, but with poor sharing capabilities. You can either mount an encryption container on the server (and then IT has access to its contents) or you mount them locally but only one user can mount it for writing. AxCrypt - free encryption software that enables file-by-file encryption on the server. There are some disadvantages though - you have to manually encrypt each new file added. The files have their extensions changes. You can only set one password for all files (so all users have to know this one password). Any other ideas? Our budget is limited so enterprise-class software from Symantec or PGP would probably be not an option.

  Read the article

• How do you apply proxy settings per computer instead of per user?

  - by Oliver Salzburg

  So far, I've used a user group policy object utilizing Internet Explorer maintenance to set a proxy for the user in IE. We have now deployed the Enterprise Client (EC) starter group policy to our domain and this policy affects this behavior. The EC group policy uses the policy Make proxy settings per-machine (rather than per-user). This policy describes itself as: This policy is intended to ensure that proxy settings apply uniformly to the same computer and do not vary from user to user. Great! This seems to be an improvement over my previous setup. If you enable this policy, users cannot set user-specific proxy settings. They must use the zones created for all users of the computer. What zones and where do I configure the proxy settings for them? I assumed the policy would simply take the user settings and apply them, but that's not what's happening. Now no proxy server is set at all. So my previous settings obviously no longer have any effect. So far, I've only come up with solutions that involved direct manipulation of the Windows registry. Which is fine, I guess, but the way the proxy is configured for users makes it appear as if there could be a higher level approach.

  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

• 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

• 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

• How to Deploy an ASP.NET Web API- and Browser-based Application to a Production Environment [closed]

  - by lmttag

  Possible Duplicate: How to Deploy an ASP.NET Web API- and Browser-based Application to a Production Environment We have an ASP.NET Web API server that serves up a SQL Server data driven website. The API uses JSON to transfer data from SQL Server to the front end. We need to move it to an internal production environment (nothing will be exposed on the public Internet) and we’re having problems - or just not understanding what needs to be done. There are two domains: The corporate domain - where all users login normally. The process domain - contains the database the Web API needs to access. The IT staff wants to put a DMZ between the two domains to house the IIS app and shield the users on the corporate domain from having access into the process domain directly. The ideal configuration is: corp domain (end users) <–> firewall (open port 80) <–> DMZ (web server running IIS) <–> firewall (open port 80 or 1433????) <–> process domain (IIS for Web API and SQL Server) We don’t really understand how to deploy our browser/Web API application in this scenario. Do we need to break up our application so that all the client code is on the IIS server in the DMZ, while the Web API gets installed on the server in the process domain? Does the entire app (client code and Web API) stay together on the IIS server in the DMZ, which then somehow accesses the SQL Server instance to get data? From the IIS server and app in the DMZ, would you simply access the Web API on the server in the process domain by going to http://server/appname/api/getitmes? In the second firewall between the DMZ and the process domain, would you have to open port 1433 or just port 80 since the Web API is a HTTP endpoint? Or, is there some better way of deployment (i.e., how ASP.NET Web API single page applications written all in HTML5 and JavaScript supposed to be deployed to production environments?)? NB: The servers are Win2k8 R2, SQL Server 2k8 R2, and IIS 7.5.

  Read the article

• Is there a command to change primary group for a new user in Cygwin?

  - by Rob Gilliam

  Is there a way to set a (new) user's primary group in Cygwin's /etc/passwd file without hand-editing the file? I have a local group set up for members of the Dev Team on a Windows Server 2008 R2 box so that we can all modify a particular group files, but the regular users can only read them. As some of the work we do uses scripts that rely on Cygwin tools, this group is also in the /etc/group file. When I need to add a new user to the "Dev Team" group, I add them in Server Manager, and then use mkpasswd to add that user to Cygwin's /etc/passwd file. Unfortunately, they get the regular Domain Users group assigned as their primary group and I then have to go in and edit the passwd file to change the group. I now need to write some instructions for someone else who is not au fait with UNIX/Linux/Cygwin so that they can set up new Dev Team users and obviously "hand editing" /etc/passwd is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're doing. So, is there a way of getting mkpasswd to set a different primary group, or another tool like Linux's usermod which can be used for the purpose of changing the group in a more controlled manner?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317  | Next Page >