Search Results

Search found 15914 results on 637 pages for 'physical security'.

Page 145/637 | < Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >

  • Returning "200 OK" in Apache on HTTP OPTIONS requests

    - by i..
    I'm attempting to implement cross-domain HTTP access control without touching any code. I've got my Apache(2) server returning the correct Access Control headers with this block: Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*" Header set Access-Control-Allow-Methods "POST, GET, OPTIONS" I now need to prevent Apache from executing my code when the browser sends a HTTP OPTIONS request (it's stored in the REQUEST_METHOD environment variable), returning 200 OK. How can I configure Apache to respond "200 OK" when the request method is OPTIONS? I've tried this mod_rewrite block, but the Access Control headers are lost. RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_METHOD} OPTIONS RewriteRule ^(.*)$ $1 [R=200,L]

    Read the article

  • Several border firewalls in the same network

    - by nimai
    I'm currently analyzing the consequences of multipath connections for the firewalls. In that context, I'm wondering if it's really uncommon to have several firewalls at the borders of a network to protect it. The typical case I'd imagine would be a multihomed network, for which the administrator would have different policies for links from different (or not) ISPs. Or maybe even in an ISP's network. What would be the practical (dis)advantages of such a configuration? Could you provide an example of an existing topology using several border firewalls?

    Read the article

  • File/folder Write/Delete wise, is my server secure?

    - by acidzombie24
    I wanted to know if someone got access to my server by using a nonroot account, how much damage can he do? After i su someuser I used this command to find all files and folders that are writeable. find / -writable >> list.txt Here is the result. Its most /dev/something and /proc/something and these /var/lock /var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock /var/tmp /var/lib/php5 Is my system secure? /var/tmp makes sense but i am unsure why this user has write access to those folders. Should i change them? stat /var/lib/php5 gives me 1733 which is odd. Why write access? why no read? is this some kind of weird use of a temp file?

    Read the article

  • PuTTY - Server Unexpectedly Closed Network Connection

    - by Austin
    I have two servers that I have been able to connect fine as s1.website.com and s2.website.com I connected to s1.website.com earlier today without any issues, however, when I connected to s2.website.com it gave me the "Server Unexpectedly Closed Network Connection" I have researched this elsewhere and someone concluded it to a "brute force attempt" However, I know this is not the case. If anyone else has had this issue please let me know. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Good free guide for mod_security?

    - by Josh
    I have looked at the official sites documentation, and it is a little tough to find starting points. Is there a free comprehensive guide that is easy to understand for someone that has never dealt with mod_security?

    Read the article

  • How much information can websites get about your browser/PC?

    - by Pickledegg
    I am trying to determine if the information shown on this website is the absolute maximum amount of information that a webserver can obtain from a web visitor. Does anyone know of any other sites that will be able to get more information from the user passively like this? I'm not talking about port-sniffing or any kind of interaction from the user, just the info that a server can get from a 'dumb' visit.

    Read the article

  • How can I restrict the backuppc client user as much as possible? (rsync)

    - by jxn
    I have backuppc making full backups of servers, but I'd like to be sure that my set up is as paranoid as possible. BackupPC is set up to backup via rsync, and it is set up to use a specific user on each client to be backed up. Because the backuppc client user has to have access to every file on the client machine and the ability to ssh into the machine without an interactive password, I'm a little nervous about securing the clients, and I'd like to know I haven't overlooked any options. Here's what I have in place: in the client user's authorized_keys file, i've included from="IPTOSERVER",command="/usr/bin/rsync" before the user's public key, so that the user can only login coming from the BackupPC server. Next, in the sudoers file, I've added this line: backuppc ALL=NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/rsync to allow root-level permissions only for the rsync command for that user. Are there other user, policy, or ssh restrictions that I can add while still allowing the backup pc client user to rsync all files?

    Read the article

  • strategy /insights for avoiding document content loss due to encryption

    - by pbernatchez
    I'm about to encourage a group of people to begin using S-Mime and GPG for digital signatures and encryption. I foresee a nightmare of encrypted documents which can no longer be recovered because of lost keys. The thorniest issue is archiving. The natural way to preserve privacy in an archive is to archive the encrypted document. But that opens us up to the risk of a lost key when time comes to unarchive a document, or a forgotten password. After all it will be a long way in the future. This would be equivalent to having destroyed the document. First thought is archiving keys with documents, but that still leaves the forgotten pass phrase. Archiving the passphrase too would be tantamount to archiving in the clear. No privacy. What approaches do you use? What insights can you offer on the issue?

    Read the article

  • Mitigating the 'firesheep' attack at the network layer?

    - by pobk
    What are the sysadmin's thoughts on mitigating the 'firesheep' attack for servers they manage? Firesheep is a new firefox extension that allows anyone who installs it to sidejack session it can discover. It does it's discovery by sniffing packets on the network and looking for session cookies from known sites. It is relatively easy to write plugins for the extension to listen for cookies from additional sites. From a systems/network perspective, we've discussed the possibility of encrypting the whole site, but this introduces additional load on servers and screws with site-indexing, assets and general performance. One option we've investigated is to use our firewalls to do SSL Offload, but as I mentioned earlier, this would require all of the site to be encrypted. What's the general thoughts on protecting against this attack vector? I've asked a similar question on StackOverflow, however, it would be interesting to see what the systems engineers thought.

    Read the article

  • Simple secured SFTP tunnel?

    - by babonk
    I'd like to setup an sftp tunnel so that I can connect to an IP-secured SFTP server through a gateway computer from anywhere, and download the files to anywhere. I was thinking of using a combination with netcat, having it listen to either WinSCP or PuTTY sFTP (doesn't matter which). Not sure how I would download the files to the connecting computer though. I would like the tunnel to be secured, preferably, with a username/password. I'm open to using alternative software but I'm looking for unintrusive, simple command line stuff because I don't want to install a lot on this computer. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How do I securely share my server?

    - by Blue
    I have a large dedicated server running Debian and I want to share it with about 6 friends of mine. I know I can simply just use adduser to create user accounts for them, but I want to know if they can, even as a regular user without root permissions, do anything malicious. I know by default they have read permissions for other users in the /home, and can solve that with chmod, but I just want to make sure that there's nothing else they can do. And also, is there any kind of script or program that makes it easier to create and manage shell users on a server?

    Read the article

  • is there any valid reason for users to request phpinfo()

    - by The Journeyman geek
    I'm working on writing a set of rules for fail2ban to make life a little more interesting for whoever is trying to bruteforce his way into my system. A good majority of the attempts tend to revolve around trying to get into phpinfo() via my webserver -as below GET //pma/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 GET //admin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 GET //dbadmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 GET //mysql/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1 I'm wondering if there's any valid reason for a user to attempt to access phpinfo() via apache, since if not, i can simply use that, or more specifically the regex GET //[^>]+=phpinfo\(\) as a filter to eliminate these attacks

    Read the article

  • How intrusive is using VPN?

    - by Slade
    My company lets us work from home sometimes using VPN (during weather emergencies and stuff). When logging in a big window comes up that says the network is private and for employees only and that there's no right to privacy while using VPN. It makes sense that they don't want people poking around their network but I wonder if the company can use the connection to look around my computer while I'm connected. I'm not entirely computer-illiterate but I'm not a networks person at all so the technical documents I've found don't help me. Is that possible, and if so to what degree? UPDATE Thanks Mark. The funneling thing is what I was really asking about. Mostly I was worried that I would already have some IM conversation open or log into eBay forgetting that the VPN was open and that my company IT people would see it or that they would log my eBay password. Thanks again. ANOTHER UPDATE What if my son wants to play online poker or Warcraft etcetera while I have VPN on to work? Can my company think I'm the one playing if I am not typing often?

    Read the article

  • Taking user out of MACHINENAME\Users group does not disallow them from authenticating with IIS site

    - by jayrdub
    I have a site that has anonymous access disabled and uses only IIS basic authentication. The site's home directory only has the MACHINENAME\Users group with permissions. I have one user that I don't want to be able to log-in to this site, so I thought all I would need to do is take that user out of the Users group, but doing so still allows him to authenticate. I know it is the Users group that is allowing authentication because if I remove that group's permissions on the directory, he is not allowed to log in. Is there something special about the Users group that makes it so you are actually always a part of it? Is the only solution to revoke the Users group's permissions on the site's home directory and grant a new group access that contains only the allowed users?

    Read the article

  • This operation has been cancelled due to restrictions in effect on this computer

    - by Dan
    I have this HUGELY irritating problem on Windows 7 (x64). Whenever I click on ANY link (that exists on a Word document, Excel or Outlook), I get an alert box with the message: This operation has been canceled due to restrictions in effect on this computer I have been scouring my settings and the Internet for a solution, but to no avail. What is the reason for this problem? It even happens when I click anchors in word document. That is, I can't even click on an entry in a Table of Contents to go to the appropriate page - I get this same error then. Is this a Windows 7 thing? Is there any way to turn this off?

    Read the article

  • My Window's 7 is exposing me and my files I am the only administrator.

    - by Connie
    I am the only administrator on my Window's 7 Asus x53E series laptop. Why is a standard user able to access my files by just searching my name in the start menu? If I log into guest account and search my name it shows an error that i don't have permission. When i log into my roommate's standard account and go to the start menu I put my name in search and everything I have done or searched is open to them . How can i make my administrator account private

    Read the article

  • What else can I do to secure my Linux server?

    - by eric01
    I want to put a web application on my Linux server: I will first explain to you what the web app will do and then I will tell you what I did so far to secure my brand new Linux system. The app will be a classified ads website (like gumtree.co.uk) where users can sell their items, upload images, send to and receive emails from the admin. It will use SSL for some pages. I will need SSH. So far, what I did to secure my stock Ubuntu (latest version) is the following: NOTE: I probably did some things that will prevent the application from doing all its tasks, so please let me know of that. My machine's sole purpose will be hosting the website. (I put numbers as bullet points so you can refer to them more easily) 1) Firewall I installed Uncomplicated Firewall. Deny IN & OUT by default Rules: Allow IN & OUT: HTTP, IMAP, POP3, SMTP, SSH, UDP port 53 (DNS), UDP port 123 (SNTP), SSL, port 443 (the ones I didn't allow were FTP, NFS, Samba, VNC, CUPS) When I install MySQL & Apache, I will open up Port 3306 IN & OUT. 2) Secure the partition in /etc/fstab, I added the following line at the end: tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs defaults,rw 0 0 Then in console: mount -o remount /dev/shm 3) Secure the kernel In the file /etc/sysctl.conf, there are a few different filters to uncomment. I didn't know which one was relevant to web app hosting. Which one should I activate? They are the following: A) Turn on Source Address Verification in all interfaces to prevent spoofing attacks B) Uncomment the next line to enable packet forwarding for IPv4 C) Uncomment the next line to enable packet forwarding for IPv6 D) Do no accept ICMP redirects (we are not a router) E) Accept ICMP redirects only for gateways listed in our default gateway list F) Do not send ICMP redirects G) Do not accept IP source route packets (we are not a router) H) Log Martian Packets 4) Configure the passwd file Replace "sh" by "false" for all accounts except user account and root. I also did it for the account called sshd. I am not sure whether it will prevent SSH connection (which I want to use) or if it's something else. 5) Configure the shadow file In the console: passwd -l to lock all accounts except user account. 6) Install rkhunter and chkrootkit 7) Install Bum Disabled those services: "High performance mail server", "unreadable (kerneloops)","unreadable (speech-dispatcher)","Restores DNS" (should this one stay on?) 8) Install Apparmor_profiles 9) Install clamav & freshclam (antivirus and update) What did I do wrong and what should I do more to secure this Linux machine? Thanks a lot in advance

    Read the article

  • Mysterious visitor to hidden PHP page

    - by B. VB.
    On my website, I have a "hidden" page that displays a list of the most recent visitors. There exist no links at all to this single PHP page, and, theoretically, only I know of its existence. I check it many times per day to see what new hits I have. However, about once a week, I get a hit from a 208.80.194.* address on this supposedly hidden page (it records hits to itself). The strange thing is this: this mysterious person/bot does not visit any other page on my site. Not the public PHP pages, but only this hidden page that prints the visitors. It's always a single hit, and the HTTP_REFERER is blank. The other data is always some variation of Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; YPC 3.2.0; FunWebProducts; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; SpamBlockerUtility 4.8.4; yplus 5.1.04b) ... but sometimes MSIE 6.0 instead of 7, and various other plug ins. The browser is different every time, as with the lowest-order bits of the address. And it's just that. One hit per week or so, to that one page. Absolutely no other pages are touched by this mysterious vistor. Doing a whois on that IP address showed it's from the new york area, and from the "Websense" ISP. The lowest order 8 bits of their address are always different, but always from 208.80.194.*/8. From most of the computers that I access my website, doing a tracerout to my server does not contain a router anywhere along the way with the IP 208.80.*. So that rules out any kind of HTTP sniffing, I might think. I have NO idea how, why this is happening. Does anyone have any clue, or have seen something as strange as this before? It seems completely benign, but unexplainable and a little creepy. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Linux File Permissions & Access Control Query

    - by Jason
    Hi, Lets say I am user: bob & group: users. There is this file: -rw----r-- 1 root users 4 May 8 22:34 testfile First question, why can't bob read the file as it's readable by others? Is it simply that if you are denied by group, then you are auto-blacklisted for others? I always assumed that the final 3 bits too precedence over user/group permission bits, guess I was wrong... Second question, how is this implemented? I suppose it's linked to the first query, but how does this work in relation to Access Control, is it related to how ACLs work / are queried? Just trying to understand how these 9 permission bits are actually implemented/used in Linux. Thanks alot.

    Read the article

  • Finding Webserver Vulnerability

    - by Brent
    We operate a webserver farm hosting around 300 websites. Yesterday morning a script placed .htaccess files owned by www-data (the apache user) in every directory under the document_root of most (but not all) sites. The content of the .htaccess file was this: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^http:// RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !%{HTTP_HOST} RewriteRule . http://84f6a4eef61784b33e4acbd32c8fdd72.com/%{REMOTE_ADDR} Googling for that url (which is the md5 hash of "antivirus") I discovered that this same thing happened all over the internet, and am looking for somebody who has already dealt with this, and determined where the vulnerability is. I have searched most of our logs, but haven't found anything conclusive yet. Are there others who experienced the same thing that have gotten further than I have in pinpointing the hole? So far we have determined: the changes were made as www-data, so apache or it's plugins are likely the culprit all the changes were made within 15 minutes of each other, so it was probably automated since our websites have widely varying domain names, I think a single vulnerability on one site was responsible (rather than a common vulnerability on every site) if an .htaccess file already existed and was writeable by www-data, then the script was kind, and simply appended the above lines to the end of the file (making it easy to reverse) Any more hints would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Securing debain with fail2ban or iptables

    - by Jimmy
    I'm looking to secure my server. Initially my first thought was to use iptables but then I also learnt about Fail2ban. I understand that Fail2ban is based on iptables, but it has the advantages of being able to ban IP's after a number of attempts. Let's say I want to block FTP completely: Should I write a separate IPtable rule to block FTP, and use Fail2ban just for SSH Or instead simply put all rules, even the FTP blocking rule within the Fail2Ban config Any help on this would be appreciated. James

    Read the article

  • Is Exchange protected from/allow back dated emails?

    - by David
    Does Exchange Server adequately protect against backdating items in a mailbox folder? I want to determine from an auditing perspective what level of risk exists/what trust can be put into Exchange database records. Is there a (mis)feature that allows end point users to modify the sent/recieved date fields on their own messages? Is there a reasonable way short of hand editing the files for an Exchange Server admin to make such a change? And most importantly: Is there any kind of "sequence number" that we could use to audit Exchange records for evidence of date manipulation (ex. msg100 = Dec 15, msg101 = Dec 10, msg102 = Dec 16)

    Read the article

  • Use .htaccess to block *All* access to specific folders.

    - by Urda
    I am not sure how to do this, but I want to block all access to a specific set of folders on my web server. Say secret01 and secret 02... homeDir |- data |- www | |- .htaccess (file) | |- images | |- js | |- secret01 | |- secret02 | |... |... What rule(s) do I need to add to my root .htaccess file to do this? I want all access from the web blocked from going into these folders, period. Only way one could get to them would be over SFTP or SSH. So what rule am I looking for? I am preferably looking for a one-liner so I can add more folders or move it to another site down the road. I really would prefer if the rule could be placed in the .htaccess root file so I don't have to jump all over the place to lock and unlock folders.

    Read the article

  • File permissions on web server

    - by plua
    I have just read this useful article on files permissions, and I am about to implement a as-strict-as-possible file permissions policy on our webserver. Our situation: we have a web server accessed through sftp by different users from within our company, and we have the general public accessing Apache - sometimes uploading files through PHP. I distinguish folders and files by their use. So based on this reading, here is my plan: All people who need to upload files will have separate users. But all of those users will belong to two groups: uploaders, and webserver. Apache will belong to the group webserver. Directories Permission: 771 Owner: user:uploaders Explanation: to access files in the folder, everybody needs to have execute permission. Only uploaders will be adding/removing files, so they also get r+w permission. Files within the web-root Permission: 664 Owner: user:uploaders Explanation: they will be uploaded and changed by different users, so both owner and group need to have w+r permissions. Webserver needs to only read files, so r permission only. Upload-directories Permission: 771 Owner: user:webserver Explanation: when files need to be uploaded, Apache needs to be able to write to this directory. But I figure it is safer to change the owner to webroot, thus giving Apache sufficient privileges (and all uploaders also belong to this group and will have the same permissions), while safeguarding from "others" writing to this folder. Uploaded files Permission: 664 Owner: user:webserver Explanation: after uploading Apache might need to delete files, but this is no problem because they have w+r permission of the folder. So no need to make this file any more accessible than r access for group. Being not an expert on file permissions, my question is whether or not this is the best possible policy for our situation? Any suggestions welcome.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >