Search Results

Search found 19179 results on 768 pages for 'ms security essentials'.

Page 180/768 | < Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >

• Our VPS is being used as a Warez mule

  - by Mikuso

  The company I work for runs a series of ecommerce stores on a VPS. It's a WAMP stack, 50gb storage. We use an archaic piece of ecommerce software which operates almost entirely client-side. When an order is taken, it writes it to disk and then we schedule a task to download the orders once every 10 minutes. A few days ago, we ran out of disk space, which caused orders to fail to be written. I quickly hopped on to delete some old logs from the mailserver and freed up a couple of GB pretty quickly, but I wondered how we could fill up 50gb will nothing much more than logs. Turns out, we didn't. Hidden deep within the c:\System Volume Information directory, we have a stack of pirated videos, which seem to have appeared (looking at the timestamps) over the past three weeks. Porn, American Sports, Australian cooking shows. A very odd collection. Doesn't look like an individual's personal tastes - more like the VPS is being used as a mule. We have a 5-attempts and you're blocked policy on our FTP server (plus, there is no FTP account with access to that directory), and the windows user account has had it's password changed recently. The main avenues are sealed - and logs can verify that. I thought I'd watch and see if it happened again, and yes, another cooking show has appeared this morning. I am the only one to know of this problem at my company, and only one of two with access to the VPS (the other being my boss, but no - it's not him). So how is this happening? Is there a vulnerability in some of the software on the VPS? Are the VPS owners peddling warez across our rented space? (can they do this?) I don't want to delete the warez in case it is seen as a hostile action against this outside force, and they choose to retaliate. What should I do? How do I troubleshoot this? Has this happened to anyone else before?

  Read the article

• How to stop registration attempts on Asterisk

  - by Travesty3

  The main question: My Asterisk logs are littered with messages like these: [2012-05-29 15:53:49] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:50] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:54:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:54:03] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"55435217"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"1731687005"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=dEBcOzUysX [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=9zUari4Mve [2012-05-30 01:19:00] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=sOYgI1ItQn [2012-05-30 01:19:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=2EGLTzZSEi [2012-05-30 01:19:04] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=j0JfZoPcur [2012-05-30 01:19:06] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=Ra0DFDKggt [2012-05-30 01:19:08] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=rR7q7aTHEz [2012-05-30 01:19:10] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=VHUMtOpIvU [2012-05-30 01:19:12] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=JxZUzBnPMW I use Asterisk for an automated phone system. The only thing it does is receives incoming calls and executes a Perl script. No outgoing calls, no incoming calls to an actual phone, no phones registered with Asterisk. It seems like there should be an easy way to block all unauthorized registration attempts, but I have struggled with this for a long time. It seems like there should be a more effective way to prevent these attempts from even getting far enough to reach my Asterisk logs. Some setting I could turn on/off that doesn't allow registration attempts at all or something. Is there any way to do this? Also, am I correct in assuming that the "Registration from ..." messages are likely people attempting to get access to my Asterisk server (probably to make calls on my account)? And what's the difference between those messages and the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages? Further detail: I know that the "Registration from ..." lines are intruders attempting to get access to my Asterisk server. With Fail2Ban set up, these IPs are banned after 5 attempts (for some reason, one got 6 attempts, but w/e). But I have no idea what the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages mean or how to stop these potential intrusion attempts. As far as I can tell, they have never been successful (haven't seen any weird charges on my bills or anything). Here's what I have done: Set up hardware firewall rules as shown below. Here, xx.xx.xx.xx is the IP address of the server, yy.yy.yy.yy is the IP address of our facility, and aa.aa.aa.aa, bb.bb.bb.bb, and cc.cc.cc.cc are the IP addresses that our VoIP provider uses. Theoretically, ports 10000-20000 should only be accessible by those three IPs.+-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | Order | Source Ip | Protocol | Direction | Action | Destination Ip | Destination Port | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | 1 | cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 2 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 80 | | 3 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2749 | | 4 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 443 | | 5 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 53 | | 6 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1981 | | 7 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1991 | | 8 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2001 | | 9 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 137-138 | | 10 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 139 | | 11 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 445 | | 14 | aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 17 | bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 18 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1971 | | 19 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2739 | | 20 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1023-1050 | | 21 | any | all | inbound | deny | any on server | 1-65535 | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ Set up Fail2Ban. This is sort of working, but it's reactive instead of proactive, and doesn't seem to be blocking everything (like the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages). Set up rules in sip.conf to deny all except for my VoIP provider. Here is my sip.conf with almost all commented lines removed (to save space). Notice at the bottom is my attempt to deny all except for my VoIP provider:[general] context=default allowguest=no allowoverlap=no bindport=5060 bindaddr=0.0.0.0 srvlookup=yes disallow=all allow=g726 allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=g726aal2 allow=adpcm allow=slin allow=lpc10 allow=speex allow=g726 insecure=invite alwaysauthreject=yes ;registertimeout=20 registerattempts=0 register = user:pass:[email protected]:5060/700 [mysipprovider] type=peer username=user fromuser=user secret=pass host=sip.mysipprovider.com fromdomain=sip.mysipprovider.com nat=no ;canreinvite=yes qualify=yes context=inbound-mysipprovider disallow=all allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=gsm insecure=port,invite deny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 permit=aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 permit=bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 permit=cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255

  Read the article

• How to securely store and update backup on remote server via ssh/rsync

  - by Sergey P. aka azure

  I have about 200 Gb of pictures (let's say about 1 mb/file, 200k files) on my desktop. I have access (including root access) to remote linux server. And I want to have updateable backup of my pictures on remote server. rsync seems to be the right tool for such kind of job. But other people also have access (including root access) to this server and I want to keep my pictures private. So the question is: what is the best way to keep private files on remote "shared" linux server securely?

  Read the article

• How to handle user accounts for many sites running on same server

  - by Simon Courtenage

  Background to this question: I want to host multiple e-commerce sites on the same server, each with their own separate customer login application. Each site's login application needs to be secured by SSL. I'm unsure how best to handle this. For example, do I need to acquire a separate SSL certificate for each site (in which case, how do I do this dynamically, as the sites are created), or do I handle this using ONE login gateway-style application, which handles it on behalf of all the sites via a kind of transparent redirect? I'd be grateful for any pointers or advice. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Information about recent code injection from http://superiot.ru

  - by klennepette

  Hello, I manage the hosting for a few dozen websites. Since about a week I've been finding this code in 12 different websites in theindex.php files: <script type="text/javascript" src="http://superiot.ru/**.js"></script> // The name of the actual javascript file differs <!-- some hash here--> Some of the websites are on different servers, some aren't. I'm just wondering if anyone else has been seeing this too. Edit with some more information: All servers are centOS 5.3 PHP versions are either 5.2.9 or 5.2.4 Apache versions are either 2.2.3 or 1.3.39

  Read the article

• Disable mod_security on Dreamhost, for a single cgi script

  - by Hippyjim

  Hi I've searched around a lot, and tried various tweaks to .htaccess files to try to turn off mod_security for a particular cgi script (uber uploader) but it doesn't seem to have any effect. The most popular one I see rehashed all over the web is: # Turn off mod_security filtering. SecFilterEngine Off # The below probably isn't needed, # but better safe than sorry. SecFilterScanPOST Off Which looks relative simple to me - if "SecFilterEngine" is in some way related to mod_security of course. Shame it has absolutely no effect! Does anyone have a suggested way I can simply disable it for a request to any file in my cgi-bin directory?

  Read the article

• Prevent registry changes by users

  - by graf_ignotiev

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

  Read the article

• Network vulnerability and port scanning services

  - by DigitalRoss

  I'm setting up a periodic port scan and vulnerability scan for a medium-sized network implementing a customer-facing web application. The hosts run CentOS 5.4. I've used tools like Nmap and OpenVAS, but our firewall rules have special cases for connections originating from our own facilities and servers, so really the scan should be done from the outside. Rather than set up a VPS or EC2 server and configuring it with various tools, it seems like this could just be contracted out to a port and vulnerability scanning service. If they do it professionally they may be more up to date than something I set up and let run for a year... Any recommendations or experience doing this?

  Read the article

• Trusted Root certificates regularly disappear on Windows 7

  - by Evgeny

  I've installed several self-signed certificates on my Windows 7 Ultimate x64 machine for development purposes. One was installed into Trusted Root CAs and 2 were installed into My Certificates and Trusted People. Every day or two the certificate installed into Trusted Root CAs disappears and I have to re-install it! This is annoying the hell out of me. Why is it happening and how do I stop it? The other certificates (installed into other stores) do not disappear. My first thought was some kind of Group Policy, but my machine is not part of a domain - though it does obtains its IP address from a corporate DHCP server, so I'm not sure if they can somehow still manage to apply Group Policy to me.

  Read the article

• Creating limited user account on Windows 7

  - by serena

  I'm sharing my PC (Win 7 x64 Home Premium) with a friend, and I wanna create a guest user for her. I don't want her to reach my files, Windows settings, program adjustments etc. She should just surf the net, create/edit her own Word, Excel documents, and simple things like these. How can I create this user account and make the necessary arrangements for limitations?

  Read the article

• Bad ways to secure wireless network.

  - by Moshe

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

  Read the article

• RDP over VPN only

  - by shiva

  I know this question has been asked many a times here. But i want to gain certain perspective here. I have enabled VPN on certain systems and then can access remote system using rdp. However they can access the remote system without rdp as well. Is this because all these systems are in same lan group? How can i ensure that rdp works only when connected to vpn? I am looking at one vpn system and people should log into that system and then connect to vpn and then access remote system using rdp. I know that this can be achieved but i am not sure how to go about it. please guide me

  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

• WEP/WPA/WPA2 and wifi sniffing

  - by jcea

  Hi, I know that WEP traffic can be "sniffed" by any user of the WIFI. I know that WPA/WPA2 traffic is encrypted using a different link key for each user, so they can't sniff traffic... unless they capture the initial handshake. If you are using a PSK (preshared key) schema, then you recover the link key trivially from this initial handshake. If you don't know the PSK, you can capture the handshake and try to crack the PSK by bruteforce offline. Is my understanding correct so far?. I know that WPA2 has AES mode and can use "secure" tokens like X.509 certificates and such, and it is said to be secure against sniffing because capturing the handshake doesn't help you. So, is WPA2+AES secure (so far) against sniffing, and how it actually works?. That is, how is the (random) link key negociated?. When using X.509 certificates or a (private and personal) passphrase. Do WPA/WPA2 have other sniffer-secure modes beside WPA2+AES? How is broadcast traffic managed to be received by all the WIFI users, if each has a different link key?. Thanks in advance! :).

  Read the article

• Isolate user from the rest of the system..?

  - by Shiki

  There is a non-techsavvy user, who doesn't want to learn, and can only use Windows XP or 7. The problem is, that the computer is shared which she would like to use, and the computer stores sensitive, important data. Since she clicks on everything, it's quite a russian roulette. How could I isolate her account from the rest of the system? Like having a profile on the computer (it runs Windows 7 now) which would have the files and other stuff sandboxed? I was thinking of having a dual boot system, but that could compromise the files too, or the boot sector (talking about Windows). Linux is not a way, hence ... see the first line. Is there such a software that can set up a sandboxed environment?

  Read the article

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

  - by Sam

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

  Read the article

• stunnel crashing

  - by Jay

  I'm trying to use stunnel to secure a legacy application's communications. I can't seem to get it setup and working. Can anyone provide any hints where I'm going wrong? Here's what I'm trying to accomplish: A windows service on a client machine connects to a server on port 7000 using TCP. I'd like to encrypt the communication between client and server. Here's what I've tried: Created a new server that accepts ssl connections on port 7443. Got a certificate for the server and installed it. That seems to work with my test setup. Installed stunnel on my windows machine (version 7.43 from the distribution archive file). Installed libssl32.dll and libeay32.dll in the same directory as stunnel.exe ( from the openssl-0.9.8h-1 binary distribution). Installed it as a service using "stunnel -install" Configured stunnel as follows: debug=7 output=C:\p4\internal\Utility\Proxy\proxy.log service=Proxy taskbar=no [exchange] accept=7000 client=yes connect=proxy.blah.com:7443 I changed my hosts file to trick the old application into connecting through stunnel: server.blah.com 127.0.0.1 # when client looks up server it goes to stunnel proxy.blah.com IP-address-of-server.blah.com # stunnel connects to new server "server.blah.com" now resolves to the machine it's running on (i.e. stunnel). "proxy.blah.com" goes to the real server. stunnel should connect to the server. I start the stunnel service and try to connect. It looks like it's working but the stunnel service just shuts down with no message. 2010.04.19 13:16:21 LOG5[4924:3716]: stunnel 4.33 on x86-pc-mingw32-gnu with OpenSSL 0.9.8h 28 May 2008 2010.04.19 13:16:21 LOG5[4924:3716]: Threading:WIN32 SSL:ENGINE Sockets:SELECT,IPv6 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG5[4924:3748]: Service exchange accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:4134 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG6[4924:3748]: connect_blocking: connecting x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG5[4924:3748]: connect_blocking: connected x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:16:49 LOG5[4924:3748]: Service exchange connected remote server from x.253.120.19:4135 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: Reading configuration from file stunnel.conf 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Snagged 64 random bytes from C:/.rnd 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Wrote 1024 new random bytes to C:/.rnd 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: RAND_status claims sufficient entropy for the PRNG 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: PRNG seeded successfully 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: SSL context initialized for service exchange 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: Configuration successful 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: No limit detected for the number of clients 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: FD=312 in non-blocking mode 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Option SO_REUSEADDR set on accept socket 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Service exchange bound to 0.0.0.0:7000 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG7[3668:3856]: Service exchange opened FD=312 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: stunnel 4.33 on x86-pc-mingw32-gnu with OpenSSL 0.9.8h 28 May 2008 2010.04.19 13:20:24 LOG5[3668:3856]: Threading:WIN32 SSL:ENGINE Sockets:SELECT,IPv6 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:4556]: Service exchange accepted FD=372 from 127.0.0.1:4156 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:4556]: Creating a new thread 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:4556]: New thread created 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: Service exchange started 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: FD=372 in non-blocking mode 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG5[3668:3756]: Service exchange accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:4156 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: FD=396 in non-blocking mode 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG6[3668:3756]: connect_blocking: connecting x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: connect_blocking: s_poll_wait x.80.60.32:7443: waiting 10 seconds 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG5[3668:3756]: connect_blocking: connected x.80.60.32:7443 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG5[3668:3756]: Service exchange connected remote server from x.253.120.19:4157 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: Remote FD=396 initialized 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): before/connect initialization 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write client hello A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server hello A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server certificate A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server done A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write client key exchange A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write change cipher spec A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write finished A 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 flush data 2010.04.19 13:21:02 LOG7[3668:3756]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read finished A The client thinks the connection is closed: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it 127.0.0.1:7000 at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.DoConnect(EndPoint endPointSnapshot, SocketAddress socketAddress) at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.Connect(EndPoint remoteEP) at Service.ConnUtility.Connect() Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• How secure is the Subversion connection to an https URL

  - by reprogrammer

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

  Read the article

• How do I remove the ServerSignature added by mod_fcgid?

  - by matthew

  I'm running Mod_Security and I'm using the SecServerSignature to customize the Server header that Apache returns. This part works fine, however I'm also running mod_fcgid which appends "mod_fcgid/2.3.5" to the header. Is there any way I can turn this off? Setting ServerSignature off doesn't do anything. I was able to get it to go away by changing the ServerTokens but that removed the customization I had added.

  Read the article

• Just added mod_security... want to whitelist a series of sub directories.

  - by kylex

  I am running a host and just updated mod_security. It "broke" a CMS in multiple sites. I want to white list all sub-directories named CMS. How do I specify a rule to do that?

  Read the article

• how insecure is my short password really?

  - by rika-uehara

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

  Read the article

• hardening a server: disallow password-login for sudoers and log unusual ips

  - by Fabian Zeindl

  Two question regarding sudo-login into an ubuntu-system (debian tips welcome as well): Is it possible to require sudoers on my box to only login with publickey-authentication? Is it possible to log which ip sudoers log in from and check that for "unusual activity" or take actions? I'm thinking about temporarily removing sudo-rights if sudoers don't log in from whitelisted IPs. Or is that too risky to be exploited?

  Read the article

• Bacula Director and Storage in LAN

  - by B14D3

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

  Read the article

• mystery Internet traffic to port 445

  - by Ben Collver

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

  Read the article

• LDAP for privilege control?

  - by neoice

  I've been wondering for a while if LDAP can be used to control user privileges. For example, if I have UNIX and web logins, is there an easy way to grant a user access to just or just UNIX (or even both?) My current attempt at solving this very problem was to create 'login' and 'nologin' groups, but this doesn't seem fine-grained enough to meet the ideas I have in my head. I'm also still in the situation where all UNIX users are web users, which isn't a problem so much as an indicator of the limitations. Does anyone have any input on this? Has this problem already been solved?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >