Search Results

Search found 25324 results on 1013 pages for 'folder security'.

Page 190/1013 | < Previous Page | 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197  | Next Page >

  • How is my password sent across when I check gmails/access bank site [closed]

    - by learnerforever
    What encryption is used when my password is sent across in gmails/when I do online banking? RSA? DSA? Public-private key encryption?. In key encryption, which entity is assigned a public/private key? Does each unique machine with unique MAC address has a unique public/private key? Does each instance of browser have unique key? Does each user have unique private/public key? How does session key come into picture? How do machines receive their keys?

    Read the article

  • Is there an SSL equivelent to an ssh agent?

    - by Matthew J Morrison
    Here is my situation: There are a number of developers who all need to have access to be able to install ruby gems and python eggs from a remote source. Currently, we have a server inside our firewall that hosts the gems and eggs. We now want the ability to be able to install things hosted on that server outside of our firewall. Since some of the gems and eggs that we host are proprietary I would like to somewhat lock access to that machine down, as unobtrusively as possible to the developers. My first thought was using something like ssh keys. So, I spent some time looking at SSL mutual authentication. I was able to get everything set up and working correctly, testing with curl, but the unfortunate thing was that I had to pass extra arguments to curl so it knows about the certificate, key and certificate authority. I was wondering if there is anything like the ssh agent that I can set up to provide that information automatically so that I can push the certificates and keys to the developer's machines so the developers don't have to log in or provide keys each time they try to install something. Another thing that I want to avoid is having to modify the 'gem' command and the 'pip' command to provide keys when they make the http connection. Any other suggestions that may solve this problem (not related to ssl mutual auth) are also welcome. EDIT: I've been continuing to research this and I came across stunnel. I think this may be what I'm looking for, any feedback regarding stunnel would also be great!

    Read the article

  • Blocking IP Range in .htaccess Problem

    - by Pedro
    Hi, I'm trying to block the access of one of my webapps using IP Filter in the .htaccess, the problem is that after updating the file with: order allow,deny deny from 58.14.0.0/15 allow from all I get the folowing error: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. What is wrong? Regards, Pedro

    Read the article

  • Open ports in Windows 7, firewall, public network, port 445

    - by chris
    I selected "public network" in Windows 7. Windows is listening on TCP port 445: TCP 0.0.0.0:445 WIN7TEST:0 ABHÖREN The corresponding incoming firewall rule isn't activated (4th column): When I choose "workplace network" the SMB incoming port 445 rule is still disabled in the advanced windows firewall configuration. I thought "public network" / "workplace network" and so on is influencing the windows firewall rules!? Where's the difference between workplace and public network then? http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=winfire2nxku0.png

    Read the article

  • Why do we need Hash by key? [migrated]

    - by Royi Namir
    (i'm just trying to find what am I missing...) Assuming John have a clear text message , he can create a regular hash ( like md5 , or sha256) and then encrypt the message. John can now send Paul the message + its (clear text)hash and Paul can know if the message was altered. ( decrypt and then compare hashes). Even if an attacker can change the encrpyted data ( without decrypt) - - when paul will open the message - and recalc the hash - it wont generate the same hash as the one john sent him. so why do we need hash by key ?

    Read the article

  • How do I securely execute commands as root via a web control panel?

    - by Chris J
    I would like to build a very simple PHP based web based control panel to add and remove users to/from and add and remove sections to/from nginx config files on my linode vps (Ubuntu 8.04 LTS). What is the most secure way of executing commands as root based on input from a web based control panel? I am loathe to run PHP as root (even if behind an IP tables firewall) for the obvious reasons. Suggestions welcome. It must be possible as several commercial (and bloated, for my needs) control panels offer similar functionality. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Spam in Whois: How is it done and how do I protect my domain?

    - by user2964971
    Yes, there are answered questions regarding spam in Whois. But still unclear: How do they do it? How should I respond? What precautions can I take? For example: Whois for google.com [...] Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZOMBIED.AND.HACKED.BY.WWW.WEB-HACK.COM IP Address: 217.107.217.167 Registrar: DOMAINCONTEXT, INC. Whois Server: whois.domaincontext.com Referral URL: http://www.domaincontext.com Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM IP Address: 69.41.185.195 Registrar: TUCOWS DOMAINS INC. Whois Server: whois.tucows.com Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.net Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.GET.ONE.MILLION.DOLLARS.AT.WWW.UNIMUNDI.COM IP Address: 209.126.190.70 Registrar: PDR LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.HAVENDATA.COM IP Address: 50.23.75.44 Registrar: PDR LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com Server Name: GOOGLE.COMMAS2CHAPTERS.COM IP Address: 216.239.32.21 Registrar: CRAZY DOMAINS FZ-LLC Whois Server: whois.crazydomains.com Referral URL: http://www.crazydomains.com [...] >>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 02:10:51 UTC <<< [...] >>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2014-06-04T19:04:53-0700 <<< [...]

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Ubuntu Server attack? how to solve?

    - by saky
    Hello, Something (Someone) is sending out UDP packets sent from our whole ip range. This seems to be multicast DNS. Our server host provided this (Our IP Address is masked with XX): Jun 3 11:02:13 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:23 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:32 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 Jun 3 11:02:35 webserver kernel: Firewall: *UDP_IN Blocked* IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=01:00:5e:00:00:fb:00:30:48:94:46:c4:08:00 SRC=193.23X.21X.XX DST=224.0.0.251 LEN=73 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5353 DPT=5353 LEN=53 I checked my /var/log/auth.log file and found out that someone from China (Using ip-locator) was trying to get in to the server using ssh. ... Jun 3 11:32:00 server2 sshd[28511]: Failed password for root from 202.100.108.25 port 39047 ssh2 Jun 3 11:32:08 server2 sshd[28514]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.100.108.25 user=root Jun 3 11:32:09 server2 sshd[28514]: Failed password for root from 202.100.108.25 port 39756 ssh2 Jun 3 11:32:16 server2 sshd[28516]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=202.100.108.25 user=root ... I have blocked that IP address using this command: sudo iptables -A INPUT -s 202.100.108.25 -j DROP However, I have no clue about the UDP multicasting, what is doing this? who is doing it? and how I can stop it? Anyone know?

    Read the article

  • Does ModSecurity 2.7.1 work with ASP.NET MVC 3?

    - by autonomatt
    I'm trying to get ModSecurity 2.7.1 to work with an ASP.NET MVC 3 website. The installation ran without errors and looking at the event log, ModSecurity is starting up successfully. I am using the modsecurity.conf-recommended file to set the basic rules. The problem I'm having is that whenever I am POSTing some form data, it doesn't get through to the controller action (or model binder). I have SecRuleEngine set to DetectionOnly. I have SecRequestBodyAccess set to On. With these settings, the body of the POST never reaches the controller action. If I set SecRequestBodyAccess to Off it works, so it's definitely something to do with how ModSecurity forwards the body data. The ModSecurity debug shows the following (looks to me as if all passed through): Second phase starting (dcfg 94b750). Input filter: Reading request body. Adding request argument (BODY): name "[0].IsSelected", value "on" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[0].Quantity", value "1" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[0].VariantSku", value "047861" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[1].Quantity", value "0" Adding request argument (BODY): name "[1].VariantSku", value "047862" Input filter: Completed receiving request body (length 115). Starting phase REQUEST_BODY. Recipe: Invoking rule 94c620; [file "*********************"] [line "54"] [id "200001"]. Rule 94c620: SecRule "REQBODY_ERROR" "!@eq 0" "phase:2,auditlog,id:200001,t:none,log,deny,status:400,msg:'Failed to parse request body.',logdata:%{reqbody_error_msg},severity:2" Transformation completed in 0 usec. Executing operator "!eq" with param "0" against REQBODY_ERROR. Operator completed in 0 usec. Rule returned 0. Recipe: Invoking rule 5549c38; [file "*********************"] [line "75"] [id "200002"]. Rule 5549c38: SecRule "MULTIPART_STRICT_ERROR" "!@eq 0" "phase:2,auditlog,id:200002,t:none,log,deny,status:44,msg:'Multipart request body failed strict validation: PE %{REQBODY_PROCESSOR_ERROR}, BQ %{MULTIPART_BOUNDARY_QUOTED}, BW %{MULTIPART_BOUNDARY_WHITESPACE}, DB %{MULTIPART_DATA_BEFORE}, DA %{MULTIPART_DATA_AFTER}, HF %{MULTIPART_HEADER_FOLDING}, LF %{MULTIPART_LF_LINE}, SM %{MULTIPART_MISSING_SEMICOLON}, IQ %{MULTIPART_INVALID_QUOTING}, IP %{MULTIPART_INVALID_PART}, IH %{MULTIPART_INVALID_HEADER_FOLDING}, FL %{MULTIPART_FILE_LIMIT_EXCEEDED}'" Transformation completed in 0 usec. Executing operator "!eq" with param "0" against MULTIPART_STRICT_ERROR. Operator completed in 0 usec. Rule returned 0. Recipe: Invoking rule 554bd70; [file "********************"] [line "80"] [id "200003"]. Rule 554bd70: SecRule "MULTIPART_UNMATCHED_BOUNDARY" "!@eq 0" "phase:2,auditlog,id:200003,t:none,log,deny,status:44,msg:'Multipart parser detected a possible unmatched boundary.'" Transformation completed in 0 usec. Executing operator "!eq" with param "0" against MULTIPART_UNMATCHED_BOUNDARY. Operator completed in 0 usec. Rule returned 0. Recipe: Invoking rule 554cbe0; [file "*********************************"] [line "94"] [id "200004"]. Rule 554cbe0: SecRule "TX:/^MSC_/" "!@streq 0" "phase:2,log,auditlog,id:200004,t:none,deny,msg:'ModSecurity internal error flagged: %{MATCHED_VAR_NAME}'" Rule returned 0. Hook insert_filter: Adding input forwarding filter (r 5541fc0). Hook insert_filter: Adding output filter (r 5541fc0). Initialising logging. Starting phase LOGGING. Recording persistent data took 0 microseconds. Audit log: Ignoring a non-relevant request. I can't see anything unusual in Fiddler. I'm using a ViewModel in the parameters of my action. No data is bound if SecRequestBodyAccess is set to On. I'm even logging all the Request.Form.Keys and values via log4net, but not getting any values there either. I'm starting to wonder if ModSecurity actually works with ASP.NET MVC or if there is some conflict with the ModSecurity http Module and the model binder kicking in. Does anyone have any suggestions or can anyone confirm they have ModSecurity working with an ASP.NET MVC website?

    Read the article

  • zip password crack possible?

    - by tm1rbrt
    I have a piece of software i have to install on company laptops. The installer needs a serial to work properly, but i don't have it (my manager isn't here so i cant ask him). The installer tells me to ring a phone number which doesnt appear to be connected anymore. I would download win32dasm and ollydbg and have a go at cracking the installer but i dont really have time and i havnt done it in years. There is a zip file on the disc that looks like it contains all the program files but it is passworded. Is it feasible to crack this or will it take ages?

    Read the article

  • Which trojan is this?

    - by omgHelpMe
    Could you identify this trojan/keylogger based on the set of files? I've been able to find out that the file names are random except rp.dll. Also, the icons are always the same. Thanks guys.

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with my Watcher (incron-like) daemon?

    - by eric01
    I have installed Watcher this way: both watcher.py and watcher.ini are located in /etc I also installed pyinotify and it does work when I use python -m pyinotify -v /var/www However, I want to use the daemon and when I start watcher.py, I get weird lines on my watcher.log (see below). I also included my watcher.ini file. Note: I have the latest version of Python. The watcher.py can be found here What is wrong with what I did? Also, do I really need pyinotify? Thanks a lot for your help watcher.ini: [DEFAULT] logfile=/var/log/watcher.log pidfile=/var/run/watcher.pid [job1] watch=/var/www events=create,delete,modify recursive=true command=mkdir /home/mockfolder ## just using this as test watcher.log: 2012-09-22 04:28:23.822029 Daemon started 2012-09-22 04:28:23.822596 job1: /var/www Traceback (most recent call last): File "/etc/watcher.py", line 359, in <module> daemon.start() File "/etc/watcher.py", line 124, in start self.run() File "/etc/watcher.py", line 256, in run autoadd = self.config.getboolean(section,'autoadd') File "/usr/lib/python2.7/ConfigParser.py", line 368, in getboolean v = self.get(section, option) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/ConfigParser.py", line 618, in get raise NoOptionError(option, section) ConfigParser.NoOptionError: No option 'autoadd' in section: 'job1'

    Read the article

  • Disable the user of Internet explorer through policies when called from HTML help

    - by Stephane
    Hello, I have a locked down environment where users are prohibited from doing, well, basically anything but run the specific programs we specify. We just switched a program from using the venerable "WinHELP" help format to HTML help (CHM) but that seem to have an unwanted and rather dangerous side effect: when a user click on a hyperlink inside the HTML help, a new internet explorer window is opened and the user is free to browse and do terrible things to my server (well, not that much, but still...) I have checked the session in this case and the IE window is actually hosted within the help engine: there is no iexplore.exe process running in the user session (and it cannot: it's explicitly prohibited). We have disable all help right now until we find a solution. I'm working with the help team to have all external URLs removed from the help file but that is going to be a long and error-prone task. Meanwhile, I've checked all the group policies option but I have to say that I was unable to find anything that would prevent a standalone IE window hosted in a random process from running. I don't want to disable WinHTTP or the IE rendering engine or anything of the sort. But I need to prevent all users members of a specific AD user group from ever having an IE window displayed to them. The servers are running Windows 2003 and Citrix metaframe 4.5. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How Hacker Can Access VPS CentOS 6 content?

    - by user2118559
    Just want to understand. Please, correct mistakes and write advices Hacker can access to VPS: 1. Through (using) console terminal, for example, using PuTTY. To access, hacker need to know port number, username and password. Port number hacker can know scanning open ports and try to login. The only way to login as I understand need to know username and password. To block (make more difficult) port scanning, need to use iptables configure /etc/sysconfig/iptables. I followed this https://www.digitalocean.com/community/articles/how-to-setup-a-basic-ip-tables-configuration-on-centos-6 tutorial and got *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [87:4524] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [77:4713] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [77:4713] COMMIT *mangle :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2358:200388] :INPUT ACCEPT [2358:200388] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [2638:477779] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [2638:477779] COMMIT *filter :INPUT DROP [1:40] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [339:56132] -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG NONE -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp ! --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,ACK SYN -m state --state NEW -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG -j DROP -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 110 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 11.111.11.111/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -s 11.111.11.111/32 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT COMMIT Regarding ports that need to be opened. If does not use ssl, then seems must leave open port 80 for website. Then for ssh (default 22) and for ftp (default 21). And set ip address, from which can connect. So if hacker uses other ip address, he can not access even knowing username and password? Regarding emails not sure. If I send email, using Gmail (Send mail as: (Use Gmail to send from your other email addresses)), then port 25 not necessary. For incoming emails at dynadot.com I use Email Forwarding. Does it mean that emails “does not arrive to VPS” (before arriving to VPS, emails are forwarded, for example to Gmail)? If emails does not arrive to VPS, then seems port 110 also not necessary. If use only ssl, must open port 443 and close port 80. Do not understand regarding port 3306 In PuTTY with /bin/netstat -lnp see Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:3306 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 992/mysqld As understand it is for mysql. But does not remember that I have opened such port (may be when installed mysql, the port is opened automatically?). Mysql is installed on the same server, where all other content. Need to understand regarding port 3306 2. Also hacker may be able access console terminal through VPS hosting provider Control Panel (serial console emergency access). As understand only using console terminal (PuTTY, etc.) can make “global” changes (changes that can not modify with ftp). 3. Hacker can access to my VPS exploiting some hole in my php code and uploading, for example, Trojan. Unfortunately, faced situation that VPS was hacked. As understand it was because I used ZPanel. On VPS ( \etc\zpanel\panel\bin) ) found one php file, that was identified as Trojan by some virus scanners (at virustotal.com). Experimented with the file on local computer (wamp). And appears that hacker can see all content of VPS, rename, delete, upload etc. From my opinion, if in PuTTY use command like chattr +i /etc/php.ini then hacker could not be able to modify php.ini. Is there any other way to get into VPS?

    Read the article

  • TeamViewer - only allow domain logins

    - by BloodyIron
    I recently started a Systems Admin job where teamviewer is used pretty frequently here. Another admin recently left, and the concern is they still have access to all our systems due to how teamviewer works. I want to migrate the entire environment to domain authentication. The documentation shows that setting up windows auth (domain) is easy, but I want to be sure that it is the only way to be authenticated with a teamviewer session here. I cannot yet find anything which explicitly says this. We have licensing for teamviewer 5 and 6, I think. Right now we have 7 in the environment, but I think most are in a trial version, so I am likely to revert to 5 or 6.

    Read the article

  • How to securely delete files stored on a SSD?

    - by Chris Neuroth
    From a (very long, but definitely worth to read) article on SSDs: When you delete a file in your OS, there is no reaction from either a hard drive or SSD. It isn’t until you overwrite the sector (on a hard drive) or page (on a SSD) that you actually lose the data. File recovery programs use this property to their advantage and that’s how they help you recover deleted files. The key distinction between HDDs and SSDs however is what happens when you overwrite a file. While a HDD can simply write the new data to the same sector, a SSD will allocate a new (or previously used) page for the overwritten data. The page that contains the now invalid data will simply be marked as invalid and at some point it’ll get erased. So, what would be the best way to securely erase files stored on a SSD? Overwriting with random data as we are used to from hard disks (e.g. using the "shred" utility) won't work unless you overwrite the WHOLE drive...

    Read the article

  • Webserver logs: "Morfeus Fucking Scanner"

    - by Patrick
    I've just found these accesses in my web server log files: ::ffff:218.38.136.38 109.72.95.175 - [10/Jan/2011:02:54:12 +0100] "GET /user/soapCaller.bs HTTP/1.1" 404 345 "-" "Morfeus Fucking Scanner" ::ffff:218.38.136.38 109.72.95.174 - [10/Jan/2011:02:54:12 +0100] "GET /user/soapCaller.bs HTTP/1.1" 404 345 "-" "Morfeus Fucking Scanner" Should I start to worry ? Or is it just a normal attempt to hack my server ? thanks

    Read the article

  • Real benefits of tcp TIME-WAIT and implications in production environment

    - by user64204
    SOME THEORY I've been doing some reading on tcp TIME-WAIT (here and there) and what I read is that it's a value set to 2 x MSL (maximum segment life) which keeps a connection in the "connection table" for a while to guarantee that, "before your allowed to create a connection with the same tuple, all the packets belonging to previous incarnations of that tuple will be dead". Since segments received (apart from SYN under specific circumstances) while a connection is either in TIME-WAIT or no longer existing would be discarded, why not close the connection right away? Q1: Is it because there is less processing involved in dealing with segments from old connections and less processing to create a new connection on the same tuple when in TIME-WAIT (i.e. are there performance benefits)? If the above explanation doesn't stand, the only reason I see the TIME-WAIT being useful would be if a client sends a SYN for a connection before it sends remaining segments for an old connection on the same tuple in which case the receiver would re-open the connection but then get bad segments and and would have to terminate it. Q2: Is this analysis correct? Q3: Are there other benefits to using TIME-WAIT? SOME PRACTICE I've been looking at the munin graphs on a production server that I administrate. Here is one: As you can see there are more connections in TIME-WAIT than ESTABLISHED, around twice as many most of the time, on some occasions four times as many. Q4: Does this have an impact on performance? Q5: If so, is it wise/recommended to reduce the TIME-WAIT value (and what to)? Q6: Is this ratio of TIME-WAIT / ESTABLISHED connections normal? Could this be related to malicious connection attempts?

    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

  • Disallow root to su on a user which is not listed in /etc/passwd

    - by marc.riera
    Hello, on linux we autenticate users against AD. The AD users are not listed on /etc/passwd. We are about to deploy a NFS solution to mount some extra space for each group of users. If a user(A) with sudo su privileges goes to root, then he can impersonate user(B) just by su user(B) and going to the NFS. Is there any way to disallow root to su user if the user is not listed on /etc/passwd ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the EGG environment variable?

    - by Randall
    A user on our (openSuSE) linux systems attempted to run sudo, and triggered an alert. He has the environment variable EGG set - EGG=UH211åH1ÒH»ÿ/bin/shHÁSH211çH1ÀPWH211æ°;^O^Ej^A_j<X^O^EÉÃÿ This looks unusual to say the least. Is EGG a legitimate environment variable? (I've found some references to PYTHON_EGG_CACHE - could be related? But that environment variable isn't set for this user). If it's legit, then I imagine this group has the best chance of recognizing it. Or, given the embedded /bin/sh in the string above, does anyone recognize this as an exploit fingerprint? It wouldn't be the first time we had a cracked account (sigh).

    Read the article

  • Securing DRAC/ILO

    - by The Diamond Z
    This might be a dumb question but DRAC/ILO both have HTTP server interfaces. If I were trolling IP's port 80 on and I came across such a page I'd know it to be a high value target in the sense that if I can crack it, I can take control of the server to some extent (potentially installing another OS). Other than changing the port, what are the best practices for securing DRAC/ILO on public Internet facing machines?

    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

< Previous Page | 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197  | Next Page >