Search Results

Search found 27912 results on 1117 pages for 'computer security'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 195/1117 | < Previous Page | 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202  | Next Page >

  • Apache httpd: Send error logs to syslog and local disk? Without touching /etc/syslog.conf?

    - by Stefan Lasiewski
    I have an Apache httpd 2.2 server. I want to log all messages using syslog, so that the requests are sent to our central syslog server. I also want to ensure that all log messages are sent to local disk, so that a sysadmin can have easy access to the log files on the local system. It is easy to send HTTP access logs to both the local disk and to syslog. One common method is: LogFormat "%V %h %l %u %t \"%r\" %>s %b \"%{Referer}i\" \"%{User-Agent}i\"" combined CustomLog logs/access_log combined CustomLog "|/usr/bin/logger -t httpd -i -p local4.info" combined But it is not easy to do this for error logs. The following configuration doesn't work, because the error logs only use the last ErrorLog stanza. The first ErrorLog stanza is ignored. ErrorLog logs/error_log ErrorLog syslog:local4.error How can I ensure that Apache errors logs are written to the local disk and are sent to syslog? Is it possible to do this without touching /etc/syslog.conf ? I am fine if my users want to manage their own Apache configuration files, but I do not want them touching system files such as /etc/syslog.conf

    Read the article

  • How can I protect files on my NGiNX server?

    - by Jean-Nicolas Boulay Desjardins
    I am trying to protect files on my server (multiple types), with NGiNX and PHP. Basically I want people to have to sign in to the website if they want to access those static files like images. DropBox does it very well. Where by they force you to sign in to access any static files you put on there server. I though about using NGiNX Perl Module. And I would write a perl script that would check the session to see if the user was sign in to give them access to a static file. I would prefer using PHP because all my code is running under PHP and I am not sure how to check a session created by PHP with PERL. So basically my question is: How can I protect static files of any types that would need the user to have sign in and have a valid session created with a PHP script?

    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

  • china and gmail attachs -

    - by doug
    "We have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.” [source] I don't know much about how internet works, but as long the chines gov has access to the chines internet providers servers, why do they need to hack gmail accounts? I assume that i don't understand how submitting/writing a message(from user to gmail servers) works, in order to be sent later to the other email address. Who can tell me how submitting a message to a web form works?

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • How secure is a subnet?

    - by HorusKol
    I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

    Read the article

  • Host's sys admins - can they view files?

    - by FullTrust
    Hi, Just a quick question. When using shared hosting, can system admins (employed by the host) access your files and read your database connectionstring details? Can they also access your database, and view the files, without a connectionstring? I'm assuming there's a certain level of trust, but is this possible/common? Thanks

    Read the article

  • 3 simple questions about file permissions

    - by Camran
    1- Wonder, is this a good setup of permissions in the /var directory? drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2010-05-30 03:34 backups drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 2010-05-29 17:55 cache drwxr-xr-x 29 root root 4096 2010-05-29 17:55 lib drwxrwsr-x 2 root staff 4096 2009-07-14 04:36 local drwxrwxrwt 3 root root 60 2010-06-02 03:34 lock drwxr-xr-x 9 root root 4096 2010-06-02 03:34 log drwxrwsr-x 2 root man 4096 2009-09-20 20:36 mail drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2009-09-20 20:36 opt drwxrwxrwt 12 root root 420 2010-06-02 12:12 run drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 2009-09-20 20:37 spool drwxrwxrwt 2 root root 4096 2009-07-14 04:36 tmp drwxr-xr-x 14 user root 4096 2010-05-30 22:21 www 2- Could you give me a brief explanation of the columns above? First one is which permissions they have. Second is a nr. Third and fourth says "root root" for example. fifth is another nr (4096 for example). and the others are obvious. 3- Could you give me a brief explanation of the folders above? Especially the "lock" and "tmp" folders. Lock contains an apache2 folder which seems empty. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How would you secure a home router with a self-signed certificate?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    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

  • Is it okay to use an administrator account for everyday use if UAC is on?

    - by Valentin Radu
    Since I switched to Windows 7 about 3 years ago, and now using Windows 8.1, I have become familiar with the concept of User Account Control and used my PC the following way: a standard account which I use for every day work and the built-in Administrator account activated and used only to elevate processes when they request so, or to ”Run as administrator” applications when I need to. However, recently after reading more about User Account Control, I started wondering if my way of working is good? Or should I use an administrator account for every day work, since an administrator account is not elevated until requested by apps, or until I request so via the ”Run as administrator” option? I am asking this because I read somewhere that the built-in Administrator account is a true administrator, by which I mean UAC doesn't pop up when logged in within it, and I am scared of not having problems when potential malicious software come into scene. I have to mention that I do not use it on a daily basis, just when I need to elevate some apps. I barely log in into it 10 times a year... So, how's better? Thanks for your answers! And Happy New Year, of course! P.S. I asked this a year ago (:P) and I think I should reiterate it: is an administrator account as safe these days as a standard account coupled with the built-in Administrator account when needed?

    Read the article

  • Execute build task in Hudson with root privilages

    - by jensendarren
    I have a build script which executes apt-get and therefore requires root privileges. What is the best way to run this script in Hudson? Currently the only solution I have found that works is to add an entry to the sudoers file for the user hudson like so: hudson ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL However, although my build script now runs without error in Hudson, I am not entirely comfortable with this solution. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • How to copy password from Mono-executed KeePass2 to xterm on Linux?

    - by Steve Emmerson
    I use KeePass2 to access username/password information in a Dropbox file. This allows convenient access from multiple devices. I can't seem to copy a password to the clipboard on my Linux 2.6.27.41-170.2.117.fc10.x86_64 system, however, in order to supply the password to a prompt in an xterm(1). I've tried both Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V and highlighting and mouse button 2 clicking. The KeePass2 program on the Linux system is executed by Mono. How can I copy the password to the xterm(1)? [Aside: I think we need a "KeePass" tag.] ADDENDUM: My mouse buttons were misconfigured: button 2 wasn't set to "copy". Sorry for the false alarm.

    Read the article

  • Setting the secure flag on cookies from Outlook Web Access

    - by Cheekysoft
    I'm running Exchange 2007 SP3 which is exposing outlook web access over only HTTPS. However the server delivers the sessionid cookie without the secure flag set. Even though I don't have port 80 open, this cookie is still vulnerable to being stolen over port 80 in the event of a man-in-the-middle attack. It also contributes to a PCI-DSS failure Does anyone know if I can persuade the web server/application to set the secure flag?

    Read the article

  • How do anti-viruses work?

    - by Phoshi
    So I was thinking about viruses recently, and wondering how exactly antiviruses keep up? Considering anybody who'd been coding for a few weeks could hack together something do do nasty, nasty things to somebody's PC, the quantity alone would make a simple list of hashes prohibitive, so how do antiviruses do it? Do they monitor process activity and have a 3 strikes rule for doing virus-like things? And if so, what's stopping it from triggering on perfectly harmless things (like me moving files around in \system32)? I did a bit of googling, but the regular places didn't particularly help, and I couldn't find a dupe here, so I thought it'd be good to ask :)

    Read the article

  • Using IP Tables to deny packet patterns?

    - by Chris
    I'm not experienced with IP tables but it's something I'll be looking into if this is plausible. I'm looking to set up a system to inspect packets and look for a pattern similar to korek's chop chop attack. Is there a way to set up the IP tables to defend against this attack? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Attack from anonymous proxy

    - by mmgn
    We got attacked by some very-bored teenagers registering in our forums and posting very explicit material using anonymous proxy websites, like http://proxify.com/ Is there a way to check the registration IP against a black list database? Has anyone experienced this and had success?

    Read the article

  • How would you change a home wireless router with a self-signed admin site certificate to be more secure?

    - by jldugger
    littleblackbox is publishing "private keys" that are accessible on publicly available firmwares. Debian calls these "snake-oil" certs. Most of these routers are securing their HTTPS certs with these, and as I think about it, I've never seen one of these internal admin websites with certs that wasn't self signed. Given a webserver on IP 192.168.1.1, how do you secure it to the point that Firefox doesn't offer warnings (and is still secured)?

    Read the article

  • Why are email transfers between mail servers often not encrypted? Why aren't users warned about it?

    - by AmV
    Users can often choose if they want to access their email provider (such as Gmail) using a secure channel (e.g. using HTTPS). However, to the best of my knowledge, when it comes to mail-server-to-mail-server communications, most emails are still transferred in plain text and not encrypted, making it possible to anybody on the network to read their content. Are there any technologies that give the user some guarantees that his emails are sent securely from end to end ? Why not let the user know when encryption is not supported and let him choose if he wants his email to be still delivered ?

    Read the article

  • Does anyone know how to "tcpdump" traffic decrypted by Mallory MITM? [migrated]

    - by chriv
    I'm looking for some help in capturing network traffic that I can analyze in Wireshare (or other tools). The tool I'm using is mallory. If anyone is familiar with mallory, I could use some help. I've got it configured and running correctly, but I don't know how to get the output that I want. The setup is on my private network. I have a VM (running Ubuntu 12.04 - precise) with two NICs: eth0 is on my "real" network eth1 is only on my "fake" network, and is using dnsmasq (for DNS and DHCP for other devices on the "fake" network) Effectively eth0 is the "WAN" on my VM, and eth1 is the "LAN" on my VM. I've setup mallory and iptables to intercept, decrypt, encrypt and rewrite all traffic coming in on destination port 443 on eth1. On the device I want intercepted, I have imported the ca.cer that mallory generated as a trusted root certificate. I need to analyze some strange behavior in the HTTPS stream between the client and server, so that's why mallory is setup in between for this MITM. I would like to take the decrypted HTTPS traffic and dump it to either a logfile or a socket in a format compatible with tcpdump/wireshark (so I can collect it later and analyze it). Running tcpdump on eth1 is too soon (it's encrypted), and running tcpdump on eth2 is too late (it's been re-encrypted). Is there a way to make mallory "tcpdump" the decrypted traffic (in both directions)?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202  | Next Page >