Split (1)

train · 180k rows

instruction stringlengths 24 29.9k
In symmetric encryption, the key responsibility is for the two parties involved (sender and receiver). Hence, it can be more vulnerable, and can cause accountability issue in cases ofthe key is compromise. If symmetric encryption is too risky, then why are other those algorithm so successful and even used today?
Following Turkey's recent social site blocks, I am wondering how can you efficiently accomplish that as a country. Similar for a big company. Blocking IPs → easy to circumvent, (proxys, tunnels, etc) Blocking/Redirecting DNS → type the address or similar as above Deep Packet Inspection → very resource intensive, can it be done in a scale of a whole country? And again, encrypting traffic, HTTPS, SSH etc… Terminating all connections at country gateways, inspecting traffic, and then encrypting traffic again? Seems very very time consuming. Is there any (obvious?) or other way I missed? I am talking generally and not for Turkey's example. And dropping all encrypted traffic does not seem to be an option for a country.
I want to encrypt a few files on my computer (not FDE). To do this, I'd like to use something that requires having some external usb thing with the key on it plugged into the computer. Price is not really an issue for the usb device (ideally in the hundreds of dollars). Any recommendations for solving this problem?
Are there ways to monitor and check for network monitoring like WireShark? Or would it just be more ideal to ensure every application uses SSL to ensure no employee or anyone could packet sniff chats/emails for information.
All websites that support authenticated user interactions have a password recovery feature. Usually they will email the password reset link through which you can easily recover your account by typing a new password. So, when pentesting some of these websites I've noticed that the password recovery token seems to be somewhat guessable. Some of the websites use MD5 or Base64 encoding for their password recovery tokens. So, my question is whether is there are any standard procedures we could use to determine the strength of a token, or the method through which token has been generated? Example of password recovery link: http://example.com/users/password?recover_token=qQGgQrwzzz1SV1X9xznc (Where the password Recovery token is qQGgQrwzzz1SV1X9xznc)
Suppose a document that was signed with a long-term signature (e.g. CAdES-A): D S T1 (D - document, S - signature, T1 - time-stamp created using a time-stamping certificate C1). If C1 appears in the TSA's CRL, is there a way or a time period (an opposite of "grace period" from RFC 5126) to still recover the long-term validity of the signed document (e.g. by quickly time-stamping it with a new valid time-stamp)? Or is the validity of all documents time-stamped with this revoked certificate definitively lost in this case (unless the document was re-stamped earlier)? (Of course, the document could have been double time-stamped by two distinct TSAa, but this is rarely done.)
I'm under the impression that a sufficiently powerful solar flare can temporarily disrupt and even damage electronics. Are there any practical approaches that one could take to minimize this disruption? In particular, what can be done to protect mission critical hardware which needs to remain running during the event?
I'm not exactly sure how metasploit works when exploiting a target machine, and it has been a while since of played with it, so forgive me. Instead of using meterpreter as a payload in metasploit, could I write my own .Net based executable that would be dropped on a system after exploitation? Assuming the victim had .Net on their machine of course.
I scanned my site using a tool that detects xss vulnerabilities. As a result, the tool generates a report that contains httprequest and response of vulnerable pages. Now my question is how this request and response can be helpful in detecting xss?
iOS and WP8 support Unique Identifier per Vendor or Publisher according to this and that. Android unfortunately does not support that feature. Is there anybody knows the mechanics of that mechanism? Has Apple/Microsoft revealed the identifier generator algorithm to the public? Assume there are two apps (a1 and a2) from different vendors. If the app a1 gets its unique identifier by calling the API (for ex. [UIDevice identifierForVendor]) then on a jailbroken device, is it possible for the app a2 to know what the unique identifier for a1 is? It sounds like the mentioned OS(s) store the Unique Identifier somewhere on the device and therefore it is vulnerable on jail-broken devices. For instance, on a jail-broken device, a2 may search a1 private directory and find the location where device_unique_identifier for a1 persisted and get it. Is it possible? I should tell you that I have read the documentation and run enough search. So please do not refer me to the original documentation and instead provide me with technical details if possible.
Let's say I have an application that accesses an encrypted datastore, and I want the admins to be able to unlock the datastore upon application startup (and then the application will have access to the datastore until it terminates). I don't want any single admin to have the ability to unlock the datastore himself, but I also don't want all of the admins to be required to do it (since they may not always be available) -- I'd like a certain subset of admins to be able to unlock the datastore by entering their credentials. For example, if I have 5 administrators for the application, I might want any two or three of them to be able to enter their passphrase to unlock access to the datastore. Is there some off-the-shelf software implementation for a system like this? This seems similar to a bifurcated key, but instead of requiring both people to supply their half of the key, I'd like any specified subset of users to be able to unlock the key.
I received this bounced email, yet I have a password with 105 bits entropy, my sign in history only shows local sign ins, I do not have any linked accounts nor apps, and I have not been to GermanyDenmark. Received: (qmail 90091 invoked by uid 102); 3 Apr 2014 21:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.33) by m9.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2014 21:27:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 11784 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2014 21:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.cybercity.dk) (212.242.43.251) by mtaq2.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2014 21:27:50 -0000 Received: from uf9.cybercity.dk (uf9.cybercity.dk [212.242.42.52]) by smtp1.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DAD010881D; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:27:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vip.cybercity.dk (unknown [197.160.61.185]) (Authenticated sender: dsl366676) by uf9.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0E24F3F414; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:27:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <002d8c496c08$3a6ab066$aa7d9632$@yahoo.com> From: Chloe <xxxxxxx@yahoo.com> To: "tiwana13" <>, "sammy" <.com>, "nyccf business" <.com>, "larissaschwartz" <.com>, "red diamond deals" <.com>, "rharmon" <.com>, "pattonjtp" <.com>, "costanz" <.com>, "colleen mac15" <.com>, "A1HomeImprover" <.com>, "Complaints" <.org>, "kk" <.com>, "mavrickn" <.com>, "rajat" <.com>, "underthehood" <.com>, "madelynballester" <.com>, "NYLAUNDROMATS" <.com>, "deal analysis nyccf" <.com>, "charles cameron" <.com>, "mdaney01" <.com> Subject: Fw: News Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2014 10:27:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_5E55_7BD63691.616F00EF" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3522.110 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3522.110 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 212.242.43.251 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 10.193.84.33 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_5E55_7BD63691.616F00EF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello! News: http://sigortasirketim.net/kfb/view.php =20 Chloe =20 ------=_NextPart_000_5E55_7BD63691.616F00EF Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <HTML><HEAD></HEAD> <BODY dir=3Dltr> <DIV dir=3Dltr> <DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000"> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT size=3D4>Hello! News:</FONT> = </FONT><A=20 href=3D"http://sigortasirketim.net/kfb/view.php"><FONT size=3D4 face=3D"Times New = Roman">http://sigortasirketim.net/kfb/view.php</FONT></A></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D4 face=3DArial>       = </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D4 face=3D"Times New = Roman">Chloe     <FONT=20 size=3D3>   </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_5E55_7BD63691.616F00EF-- Thread-Index: AXSzUC5+hzg0azlseGxkcnAwNzZ3cw==
It is recommended to verify the zeroing-out was done properly when you try to secure delete a HDD. From this post, some drives with firmware bugs prevent secure erase from working properly. What are the recommended software tools to accomplish this? Either Windows / Mac / Linux is fine. Ideally, tools that could verify for files that we just recently (secure) deleted. For example, after we deleted 1 file securely, we'd then use the tool to verify that the storage in which the file previously lived is now completely zeroed-out.
Whether or not a connection is encrypted, I'm afraid the time an information is sent from one host to another might reveal too much. And I'm literally talking about the time when pieces of information are sent, and not the information itself. Are there any way to mask when information is sent across a link? I'm specifically looking for solutions on how to mask when packets are sent via wi-fi to a host in a LAN. But of course, this problem involves more than just wi-fi, and I acknowledge that others might be interested in a solution in the ballpark of what I need, so I'm keeping this question broad. I'm also acknowledging that there might only ever be a solution for some types of medium, but not all. If that's the case, I'm open to know about solutions for those mediums as well.
I know this is possible either by modifying the firmware or doing something with the partition, but does anybody know how? This can be done? Specifically I am wanting the USB drive to read as a HD or CD when plugged into the computer. Edit: I want to be able to convert other USB drives, doing it for other people, etc. I know they can be bought but I want to learn to do it on my own.
http://blogs.cisco.com/security/mass-compromise-of-the-obsolete/ and: All Redhat/CentOS versions plus nearly 100% of linux-based routers run 2.6 Since the article is extremely uninformative.. Q: How do I know that I'm vulnerable or not? ex.: If I have an OpenWRT router, or Redhat 5?
I need to prove the need we have to install SSL certificates in our webservers. For that I've been requested to try obtaining sample credentials (in lab enviroment) during a http authentication process. How can I do this?
Can someone please explain to me how its possible that someone hacks a server and uses its email to send emails from a address thats not listed on the server and how to prevent it. When I look at the mail queue there are emails there from and to yahoo.com accounts, how does this happen and how can I prevent this. Running centos 6, interworx and qmail if that helps.
First, I have very limited knowledge about AD. Problem: I authenticating users on AD using user certificates. I want to authenticate user on various devices (including mobile devices). Each will generate its own certificate via a CA. The CA is tied up with AD, so user authenticates on AD via certificates. On the question is: Can a user account on AD hold multiple certificate for a single user. Because in my case the private key will not be share between devices (Devices will connect with CA to retrieve its own identity cert) Please help
I mainly use 2 passwords: 1 is a 4 word full lowercase passphrase of 18 letters long which I use wherever possible. The other is basically 3 words and a digit with the first word in full uppercase and only 14 digits long. I use this whenever the first passphrase is not valid due to length or character set constraints. the words are fairly common (top 5000 words on popular TV shows). I've calculated the entropy for both passwords using http://rumkin.com/tools/password/passchk.php. the entropy for both passwords is about equal at 68 bits, give or take half a bit. I mainly use these passwords for gaming related matters (MMO accounts, desktop clients, forums). I do not use these passwords for financial data, apart from 2 empty paypal accounts and a read-only prepaid credit card statement. I don't know how valid these entropy numbers are, but judging from these parameters, are these passwords safe enough for their intended purpose? And what is the general guideline for password entropy for different purposes?
What will be the default mode for AES encryption if we don't use any specific mode like ECB, CBC, OFB, CTR, etc. and just carry out the encryption without specifying any AES encryption mode.
As the title says, does anybody know how Subterfuge bypasses the SSL layer?
I'm interested in knowing what could be the consequence if the server side SSH keys of a host were compromised. The situation would be: An attacker manages to read the SSH private keys of the server. The attacker can MITM any connection to the host (because he's controlling the router, or w/e). Does that mean that any data going trough any SSH connection can now be read by the attacker? I would say no because of some key exchange algorithms like Diffie-Hellman. Is that correct? My guess would be that the worst an attacker could perform is impersonating the server, leading users to log into his system instead of the legit one.
While Pentesting through some sites i found that an Multiple account's can be created using same CSRF token which should not allowed.I want to place two scenario's to describe my question. Scenario 1:- Multiple account's can be created on the site with same CSRF token and there is no need to verify the account for using it i.e once password and email are entered ,you can directly start using your account. Scenario 2:- In this site also multiple account's can be created but user have to verify the email address to actually start using the account. From above we can clearly see that First Website is posing a great security risk.So,my question is "Can Scenario 2 can also create some risk to the website "?
I have had experience with an ISP that slows down all encrypted connections (down to an average 20-35 KBps) I was wondering if a) this is legal b)how can they do it and c) is there a way to bypass it. I have also noticed that the use of a VPN is still prone to such limitations. Furthermore, what are the implications of slowing down encrypted connections. For example, how does it help them apart from stopping their users from doing something under the "cloak" (as much as that can happen). I would appreciate any answers.
There are a number of IAST tools available on the market such as Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner and HP WebInspect Real-Time. How effective are these at finding vulnerabilities? Is there any evidence that these can find more or less than a black box application pen test (DAST) or by source code review (SAST)? I found this paper but as it is appears to be branded by a IAST vendor I wondered if there were any independent comparisons. I've also read this post with interest: What fraction of vulnerabilities does black-box pentesting find?
I've read this Android developers page regarding code signing that states: You can use self-signed certificates to sign your applications. No certificate authority is needed. I have also read the answers to "How could one detect if Apple/Google/etc. has modified a third party application distributed through their App Stores?" My question is: If Google is forced to tamper with a particular Android app on the Play Store (e.g. TextSecure) to compromise it, is any defense possible against tampering targeted at particular individuals? Example scenario: Persons of interest are using TextSecure on their Android phones to communicate. A government forces Google to push modified versions of TextSecure to those phones to compromise communications. I can think of one roundabout solution: Using a fork of the Android OS that isn't updated by Google, install a non-Play Store app that constantly checks the validity of the existing TextSecure installation (perhaps using something as simple as hash values). Are there any other possibilities? (e.g. If an app is signed with a CA-validated cert, would it be checked at run time?)
I have question about extensions of certificate and what specific extension should I use in my situation. The problem is following: I have a CA and I want that CA will issue certificate only for specific type of service. For example imagine application that can do 4 different type of actions (let's say action A, action B, C and D). For every action the application has to authenticate. Now suppose that some application want to do only action A and C. I want to issue a certificate for this app that specifies only this two type of actions and the app can not use this certificate to authenticate to do action D. And it does not have to just applications. You can image users here. I realise that I can solve this with 4 different type of CA for each type of service but this seems to be clumsy. I studied extensions of certificates but I didn't find some that fits my needs. And I also read about attributed certificates that could solve this situations but I also heard that they are not so common so I am not sure about them. Do I have to use attributed certificates or do I miss some simple solution? Thank you!
I read that Windows (probably not new OSs but say, Windows Server 2008) stores passwords using Hashes using NTLMv2 protocol which uses MD5 hash function. My questions: MD5 is known to be insecure because it is not collision resistant. How is it used in Windows 2008 server?
I have read a post in thehackernews and searched the net to find how it worked. How can anyone add javascript in an image such that when the image is displayed it can run a script. Can this be done with other languages?
I want to compute the possible combinations of a password consists of 8 digits of: alphabetical letters (26), numbers (0-9), symbols and punctuations. In order to compute this, I have to know the total no. of possible characters and raise this to the power of length of the password. However, I do not know how many possible symbols or punctuations are there? Can any one help with a reference if possible please.
After I've read a lot about key exchange many sources state that the Station-to-Station is secure, since it also verifies the entity on the other side. Well how is that true, if an active Man in the Middle can just send it's own public key and sign the concatenated shared x and y with it's own private key? Wouldn't it be as secure as classic Diffie-Hellman?
I always assumed that the process for getting a (trusted, not self-signed) certificate was more or less like this: You generate a public and private key pair From this key pair you generate a certificate You submit your public key, certificate and other (company) information to a CA The CA checks that the information you provided is correct The CA signs your certificate However, lately I am doubting this. People told me that in fact the CA itself generates the public and private key pair and certificate and signs it and sends all of that to you... This would seem to me to be very insecure in the sense that all private keys of all certificates would be in the hands of just a few CA's. I have been reading this question with a lot of interest: How do certification authorities store their private root keys?. However it only discusses the CA's own private keys. So do the CA's have a copy of the private keys of the certificates they sign or not?
Hi i am working with JSON. I want to protect my JSON . I am getting JSON on the User Interface side by a service call using a Jquery. Is there some mechanism by which the JSON which i am returning from my service is encrypted JSON and when i am receiving that JSON using JQuery i can decrypt it. But at the time of decryption i dont want to expose the Key or certificate for decryption to the Frontend. How can i protect my JSON.
For example, say I am transferring heavily-encrypted DVD/Blu-ray movies/game copies over the internet. However, I am using double or (+) encryption with keys required to decrypt the file using an encryption algorithm that may be uncommon. They would have these problems, no? 1.They can't guarantee it's what it's said to be if they can't retain the original binary data that makes up the evidence of the accusation. In such a case, they could never charge anyone without proof, and if they can't decrypt it, they can't prove anything. 2.Even if they, by some miracle, found a key and or decrypted it, the file could be an executable wrapped around the actual data; be self-modifiable; and it could attempt to use a host software program or OS library to delete itself if opened from a modern desktop, or re-arrange its own data to make it unidentified without a key/passcode. On top of that, encryption could be done on a computer with no internet connection, leaving it virtually impossible to figure out who encrypted it if it's uploaded from an IP randomly used (public Wi-Fi, different location, protocol, secured proxies, no agent info, etc.). In that case, wouldn't piracy and other stuff illegal be easy to transfer without getting caught? One could provide the keys to open the decryption and data scrambled within it over a throw away phone number, Skype, proxy, or unidentifiable remote locations. In short, can't decryption prevent authority from charging anyone in the legal system?
I saw this post How to learn penetration testing at home? and I decide to ask about my self. I want to get into cyber security. So the post I send is about web security, I'm not interested in it. I had cover those topics: Basic programming on C, intermediate(I can write a few tools that are helpful for example brute-force scrit) in python, I can read assembly code, and write basic programs I'm familiar with the most structures in assembly language I mean the stack, heap global variables. I know who to use wireshark diffrent kind of flags(SYN ACK etc..) but I'm not very good at analyzing them I mean for example if the FTP connection isn't on port 23 it will be hard for me to understand that this connection is FTP, also I can understand the most of the banners. I have more experience with Linux than Windows, but I can administrate simple server on windows, also I had exploit more Windows than linux actually the only linux machine I had exploit is metasploitable. I had exploit windows xp and 7 with different exploits. I can use Nessus and OpenVAS, I can't get nexpose. I'm familiar with metasploit framework i can use the most of the modules. I'm also familiar with cryptography I can recognize a few hash algorithms, I'm familiar with most used techniques to exchange key for example Diffie–Hellman mythology, the public key infrastructure etc. I'm also familiar with DOD and OSI model but not very deep I understand how they work, also I learn electronics in school so I'm familiar with analog circuits, I can solder use multimeter I'm familiar with the most of elements(I mean transistor, diods etc..) and I know for what are they used and how are they used, from C and ASM I'm familiar with stack and heap overflow, I know little about integer overflow and format string exploitation. So tell me how to continue. I'm really unfamiliar with web exploitation I can use a few automated tools but I can't find XSS on my own(I had tried a few times one success and a lot of fails =D). Also I had never practice in real environment I mean I hadn't pen test real company I'm kind afraid of I may do something wrong a the company lose money which I should recover. So please give me hint what to learn, I can't pay for expensive course, also I don't think that CEH will give me skills I mean they don't have any pre-requirements about their students and is kind of stupid to teach to overflow people who write to python and had never touched C.
Let's assume that there are two nodes A and B connected over a network. Both have a single pre-shared symmetric key (e.g., AES-128) and exchange messages. What is the recommended period, until the key should not be used anymore? Can they go on forever? Is there a maximum number of messages after which a rekeying should occur? Is there a difference between the different attack models like ciphertext-only and chosen-plaintext? Thanks!
I have a subordinate CA. The Enterprise root service was uninstalled from the network by accident and then migrated to a new box using the same key. This new server has a different server name. It worked for a few days and now the subordinate has two Delta-CRL locations and one is expired with an incorrect location pointing at an incorrect domain controller. How can I resolve this? The service will not start.
I've been reading about the ZeroAccess and looking into some bot's code source* and I found this piece of code which checks if filemon is running in the infected computer before running the bot. int pmain3() { std::vector<DWORD> SetOfPID; GetProcessID("filemon",SetOfPID); if (SetOfPID.empty()) { // Nothing found running, Safe to execute bot. } else { // One of the process was found running, Exit install. ExitProcess(0); } return 0; } It's not the only one. There are others checking for Wireshark, tcpview, procmon, VM, VirtualBox, sandBox ... In this case how can I analyze an infected computer? and how could I find the infected process? PS: [*] taken from the IMbotMod V4.1 botnet
I read on http://www.abuse.ch/?p=3499 that: ZeuS is now using an “IP list” which contains the IP addresses of other drones participating in the P2P botnet. An initial list of IP addresses is hardcoded in the ZeuS binary. From what I understand, the bots use a hardcoded ip list to communicate with each other. what I don't understand is, how can bots behind a NAT network communicate with each other when the IP addresses behind a NAT network are invalid?
I've seen a site that has been attacked by uploading php scripts (presumably some sort of shell, or code that loads a shell) to Wordpress' wp-content/uploads directory. Usually this directory is used for user uploaded content like photos etc. This particular server was configured to then run the malicious scripts for any user on the Internet (with knowledge of the correct URL). How does this work? How would the cracker get wordpress to place the php file in the uploads directory without a user account? I this just the infamous and inspecific "yeah, wordpress is not secure" type of problem?
I recently bought a laptop which has OPAL compliant Self encrypting hard drive. I wanted to know how I could use/check the status of the Hardware Encryption features of an OPAL drive (windows, linux or else)? How do I make sure it's active and working?
A site of ours has been targeted by some kind of strange attack and I am trying to work out exactly how it has happening. Basically, the strangest thing is that the logs seem to correspond to entirely different websites and thus is producing 404 errors all the time. Any ideas what kind of attack this is, how it is happening and why it is not showing the true site URL? 216.244.83.56 - - [05/Apr/2014:22:43:44 +0100] "GET http://anx.batanga.net/ttj?id=2385001&size=728x90 HTTP/1.0" 404 9 "http://www.daysalary.com/?p=1622" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.0 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.0.206.1 Safari/532.0" 172.246.42.217 - - [05/Apr/2014:22:43:44 +0100] "GET http://ads.yahoo.com/st?ad_type=ad&ad_size=728x90&section=5200303&pub_url=${PUB_URL} HTTP/1.0" 404 9 "http://www.healthbecare.com/?p=408" "Mozilla/4.0 (MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)" 216.176.190.44 - - [05/Apr/2014:22:43:44 +0100] "GET http://anx.batanga.net/ttj?id=2483524&size=728x90 HTTP/1.0" 404 9 "http://www.especialfinance.com/?p=1383" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; America Online Browser 1.1; rev1.5; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; FunWebProducts; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)" 67.198.154.66 - - [05/Apr/2014:22:43:44 +0100] "GET http://ad.afy11.net/srad.js?azId=1000011319807 HTTP/1.1" 404 9 "http://rumorfix.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20121231 Firefox/3.5.2 WinNT-PAI 21.07.2009" 216.244.76.188 - - [05/Apr/2014:22:43:44 +0100] "GET http://ads.yahoo.com/st?ad_type=pop&ad_size=0x0&section=5376206&banned_pop_types=29&pop_times=1&pop_frequency=0&pub_url=${PUB_URL} HTTP/1.0" 404 9 "http://www.supermoviepass.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1106:2013-12-18-20-38-05&catid=46:kids-movies&Itemid=160" "Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en) Presto/2.7.39 Version/11.00" 208.115.109.39 - - [05/Apr/2014:22:43:45 +0100] "GET http://anx.batanga.net/ttj?id=2481220&size=300x250 HTTP/1.0" 404 9 "http://www.pusheducation.com/tag/california-community-college-listing/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/5.0.307.1 Safari/532.9" As you can see in the logs this appears to be some kind of distributed denial of service. The attack is fast but not so fast that it will bring down Apache on it's own but the constant processing of application logic did put our server under a lot of strain.
Say I wanted to encrypt some sensitive information with a symmetric algorithm using a program on a computer. Is it possible that a hacker could retrieve the data,salt, iteration, cipher, keysize while the program is generating ciphered data and after? If possible, how can I prevent this?
Please see image. Does anyone have any idea of whats going on? They come and go as attached devices in my attached devices list. I also attached my routers log for you all to see. http://pastie.org/8997306
Application devlopement for mobile devices is generally more restrictive, i.e. the apps runs in a sandboxed environment, they have many limitations when accessing the filesystem, etc. compared to their desktop counterparts. What is the main reason for this?
While using Firefox to browse my forums, I noticed that a malicious user posted an image (via hotlinking, not by uploading to my server) with the extension .png which complies with the forum rules (allowing only .png, .gif, .jpg, .bmp, etc.). However, the user had used .htacess in a way that an HTTP Basic Auth box pops up asking the user to re-authenticate. This can fool some of my users into inputting their credentials into the box, while in reality the authentication box is for the server on which the image is hosted. How can I prevent this attack?
My personal hotspot is accessed from an unknown site when I am in my home. Everyone in my home owns apple products but samsung android appears in network in system profiler. Active services type hardware bsd bluetooth dun ppp(pppserial) modem bluetooth bloothtooth pan ethernet ethernet en2 ethernet ethernet ethernet en0 firewire firewire firewire fw0 samsung_android ppp(pppserial) modem usbmodemb6504182 wifi airport airport en1 10.0.0.6 is that ok?
i think for acquiring 100 % secure data transfer between forms on client side and c# code on server side ? my tools : i use IIS as my server and i wonder how can i reach for latest security that can be acquired in ASP.net forms and c# server side codes.
Background to this question is the ambivalence I assume with virtualization. Also to start directly with clarity: the term bluepill should here be a placeholder to denote "malware that uses virtualization to hide and fixate itself on an attacked system". My question is how I should deal with the risk of a bluepill when enabling virtualization on my computer? And more specific if there is a way to enable hardware supported virtualization Intels x86/i64 CPU's vt-x feature that would yet protect me from bluepill attacks? To counter/address the risk that there might not be a 100% definite answer, I would consider it a big step forward (and an accepted anser) the enumeration of a set fact based "best practice rules to enable vt-x and to prevent bluepill-type malware". This could include i.e. a suggestion for a way to check for a bluepill infection? (i.e. using that during shutdowns/reboots bluepill would need to store/conserve itself and hece become detectable on the harddisc) The motivation to the question is: On my system Intel iCore processor's the vt-x cpu feature can be enabled and disabled in the kernel. disabled: bluepill attack impracticable, but no virtualization based security benefits enabled: bluepill attack possible, but virtualization based security benefits enabled. I have gone through "The How secure are virtual machines really? False sense of security?" which has not given no consideration to the bluepill aspect yet. Therefore I think this question can enrich the topic of virtualization-security.
Mainly I'm interested in UK law on this, but I welcome input from any jurisdiction. I discovered flaws in a service that undermined the security of all its user's data. This is a service where users are billed for usage. The flaw, if exploited would allow hackers to make charges to user's accounts. I disclosed this flaw responsibly to the site owner. The site owner thanked me but played down the seriousness of the flaw, like "oh sure, you could do that, but it's never happened before". The site owner has shown no intention of fixing this, in fact the most recent update has introduced another similar flaw. This flaw comes ultimately from a lack of knowledge on a developer's part, I want to publish this incident on my blog with details of how to not do the same thing in order to educate others. Could I be breaking the law by doing that?
I have a small Truecrypt volume that contains just my password data (using Bruce Schneier's Password Safe application). I'd like an offsite, secure, backup of that Truecrypt volume. Currently, I am using mainly Spideroak, but this question would apply to any such "cloud" storage services. Backing the volume up to the cloud means exposing it to my ISP, god knows how many other downstream servers, the storage supplier, and every eavesdropper in town. Plus I may be backing it up weekly, so there'd be a series of files available for anyone who wanted to do differential analysis. Just how safe are my passwords when out of my hands and on all those other machines? I am not paranoid enough to assume I am being specifically targeted (if I were, the men in black would have plenty of other ways to get to my computers), but leaks and opportunistic attacks do occur(if they didn't, I could go with plaintext files).
I've been asked why do we trust organizations that certifies ISO 27001? From where did they get the authority and recognition to be able to certify ISO 27001? For example, I can start a certification business and certify that a company is ISO 27001 compliant. However, I'm not recognized to do that, so my "signed paper" would be useless. However, if BSi certifies it, it's not useless. Hence, why BSi certification worth but mine don't?
We have a security system installed that takes pictures of the client user's screen and sends them to a server. The pictures are saved until they get to the point where they are old enough to be deleted. It's been useful for an investigative tool when we need to find out if a user has been up to suspicious activity. The majority of our users on our network are standard user accounts with no special access. With our machines being primarily Windows 7. As an administrator of this system, I was wondering if this can potentially be "spoofed". As in, a user can exploit the client to send pictures of what he/she desires. Edit : I'm referring to the user being able to exploit the system and send the image they want sent while doing something else. I'm not referring to being able to create a window in full screen mode.
So, we have this article: http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/04/xbox-live-five-year-old-hacker/ Apparently, using nothing but spaces the local account (with an obviously saved password... I hope) was compromised. I am guessing that the password was TRIMMED before comparison and the dad had a password of merely spaces to begin with. Although, for a dad who is a "security researcher" this is seems awfully naive. So, what does Security.SE think? Is there an affirmative source that confirms how this exploit works?
The FBI currently prints and redacts documents using analog mechanisms. I'm curious to know if anyone has ever researched the accuracy of inferring the possible words or names. Certainly, given the static width of the characters in the variable width font-set, the limited space available, and the likelihood of character sequences, this should be doable. I believe this was the original document I believe this document was realigned for the purposes of OCR Here is a snippet from the document taken from page 61. Snippet reads, (U//LES) An identified `<REDACTED>` as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified `<REDACTED>` had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, Texas. `<REDACTED>` planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles. (Note: protests continued throughout the weekend with approximately 6000 persons in NYC. "Occupy Wall Street" protests have spread to about half of all states in the US, over a dozen European and Asian cities, including protests in Cleveland 10/6-8/11 at Willard Park which was initially attended by hundreds of protestors). That one little snippet covers the latin characters, "(),-./0168:<>ACDEHLNOPRSTUWYabcdefghiklmnoprstuvwxyze I'm sure the others can be be grabbed from the document too. I took the last few lines (that have no redaction) and overlaid them with a copy of the same text in Times New Roman. I'm convinced that the font is Times New Roman, but that the scan is bad or that something was done to obscure the alignment. This whole vulnerability is predicated on variable width graphemes. Where many words can be disqualified for the lack of coherency and others for their constituent character size. With variable-width fonts each grapheme has it's own size signature and while there are certainly collisions I think they may do a lot to fill in the blanks. Here are two seven letter words for example -- we can see one of them is substantially bigger: Looking however at the advance for Times New Roman, I'm not sure how useful this would be. "512" : "." "569" : "ijlt" "682" : "-frI" "797" : "sJ" "909" : "acez" "1024" : "bdghknopquvxy0123456789" "1139" : "FPS" "1251" : "ELTZ" "1366" : "BCR" "1479" : "wADGHKNOQUVXY" "1593" : "m" "1821" : "M" "1933" : "W" We can see here in the [A-Za-z0-9.-] character class there is 13 different possible lengths.
I wanted to log on to my account on my bank's website. The account is protected by a number of security checks. The first one is what really amounts to a username, a confidential one. It's an 8-digit numeric passcode (given to me by the bank), after entering which I need also to enter some personal data and a password. Today, I was notified by the system that my passcode was locked out and that I had to contact the bank by phone. I did, and I was informed, after giving a fair amount of personal data to the person on the phone in order to verify my identity, that my account was now all good and I could log on. They also told me that was probably because someone used my passcode by mistake and, being unable to enter the correct information later on, locked my passcode out. I'm quite confident that that was indeed the case -- it seems rather plausible, though my first reaction was, "Someone just tried to steal my money!" If that's what happened, it was an inconvenience for all parties involved: the person who was mistaken about their passcode was not, obviously, informed that they were entering a wrong passcode, and they wasted their time trying to enter the correct information later on; the bank had to use their human resources on helping me out; I had to waste my time and money on calling the bank at 00:05 AM on a Monday. Is anything being done by banks or other entities in order to prevent such situations? What is being done? It's them who provide the codes, and I see no reason not to make them dissimilar among the users. I've not tried to do any calculating, but it doesn't seem very complicated to make sure certain common mistakes are not going to happen. EDIT: Thank you for all the answers given so far. The answers stress the fact that the inconvenience was minor and I should be happy that was all that happened. I'm certainly not unhappy my money didn't get stolen. :) However, could you please address the question of dissimilarity? Is there a good reason not to make sure the randomly generated passcodes are immune to transpositions of adjacent digits for example?
I coded my own website and uploaded to a host. Some days ago I realised that in specific page suddenly redirects to an unknown websites, until 3-4 redirects. The redirects are: mywebsite.com/smth-> es.webtraffapi01.selfip.com/smth -> 52342123.g03.info/?p=smth -> es.webtraff.com/smth I have checked the file which gives me the problem and I don't see any redirect to a unknown website. I have downloaded all the files with FileZilla and checked with Avast Antivirus and Virustotal website and 0 virus appeared. I don't what can be the problem.
I've seen a few methods to detect ARP Spoofing attacks through code(such as this), and ways to defend against these attacks through software and switches (like arp spoofing protection on LAN). How would I prevent arp spoofing with my own code(conceptually)? I wasn't sure if this would be better for Stackoverflow or this site. EDIT: I don't care so much about any specific language, psuedocode would be great but I'm also fine with just the conceptual side of things.
I want to use a smart card (or USB cryptotoken) with a PKI certificate for manual authorisation. Is this possible? I want to put a file (e.g. a word file or even a simple text file) into a smart card. I also want to put a PKI certificate into the smart card. I issue this smart card to a user. The text file or word document spells out the rights of the user. The user hands the card to someone who can get the file from the smart card and read it. The person to whom he has handed the smartcard has my (issuer's) certificate in his trust store, so the person can verify if this certificate is to be trusted or not. Is this trust transferable? i.e. can the person assume that the document has also come from me & is not tampered? EDIT: Alternately, can I use some field in the cert itself to put text information - this makes sure that the data cannot be tampered. Is there any field in a X.509 cert where, say, 10 lines of text info can be added when generating the cert?
I developed a web application in single-page application (SPA) architecture using Ext JS as client interface, but I have a trouble defining the right way of securing it with AJAX queries. How could I do that?
My wife called a GSM/3G number abroad and the call was dropped. She called again and she could hear the whole conversation repeated with the other party but with blank period from her side of the conversation. How can this explained? The call originated from Saudi and terminated in Lebanon.
So , how does the police find/monitor criminals' actions (eavesdropping) that do cyber crime(pornography , drug trafficking etc..) without breaking their privacy, and succesfully catch em and provide evidence for the court.
Here's one thing that keeps bugging me ever since I heard about the NSA revelations. From what I heard, NSA built a system that basically sees most of the internet, made of many subsystems which affect the networks. Judging by the leaked documents, they were pretty invasive, yet nothing was detected before. How is that possible? I mean, I don't believe in perfect software at the first try. Especially a system that processes a tremendous lot of various data in the real time. How could they design a system that achieves that, without getting hacked or at least crashes resulting in observable anomalies?
I recently started working on an eCommerce addition to a site I'm working on.In my research looking for a way to do SSL without a certificate/a free certificate I came across PCI Compliance.I have been reading the PCI DSS Requirements from : https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/pci_dss_v2.pdf and to be honest a lot of this sounds a bit overkill for what I'm doing. The shop I'm working on will sell around 20 products initially to a very small amount of customers.We're using a hosting provider and we are a total of 3 employees at the company at the moment.Is PCI Compliance mandatory or just recommended and if not mandatory is it really neccessary in this case? Thanks
I am using the AF Networking 2 library and read that I need to include the server's certificate here. The client should be able to tell that the certificate is valid when it connects to the server, so why do I need to include a copy in my code?
I've taken a graph of the amount of CVE reports concerning the JRE per Year. Now as you can see this spiked in 2012-2013, which could have been guessed easily, if you look at the amount of news items concerning java in the past years. However, I'm having trouble finding an explanation why: Did Java get more popular? Did Java just become more popular for hackers? Is it because of the acquisition by Oracle?
Before I arrived at my current company we obtained the services of PCI consultant who gave us some very specific, if questionable, advice on encryption requirements. The particular piece of advice I am suspicious of is that of making sure that cardholder data is encrypted as is moves across our internal (detached) network. The method of encryption, we were told, needs to be at the Application level, and Transport level is not allowed. So, instead simply using HTTPS to move a file, we are having to encrypt the file using PGP before sending, then decrypting after it arrives. I simply can't see in the documentation where this is a requirement. Has anyone else been told the same thing? Is there a precedence for this? The document we are using is the May 2013 Card Production Logical Specs
I was reading up on the history of the PGP encryption software when I realised its creator was under criminal charges for munitions export without a license for releasing the source code of PGP. What was so dangerous about PGP at that point in time that it was an offence under the law? I mean, PGP is just an encryption and decryption algorithm; what am I missing here?
I think this is related to this question, but I would like to know if there's also a way to prevent "third party" applications from seeing hardware IDs (motherboard, hard disks, and others), or giving them fake values, on real OS, not using a virtual machine. I'm interested here in modern mainstream desktop OSes, (and especially interesting are Windows 7 and Windows 8 for x86-64).
The German BSI (Federal Office for Information Security) claims to have got a list of 18 million email addresses and passwords – supposed to be the result of identity theft. They allow to check if your own email address is part of this (or an older) list, which works like that: Enter an email address at https://www.sicherheitstest.bsi.de/ After submission, they show a four-digit code. If the entered email address is NOT part of the list: Nothing happens. If the entered email address is part of the list: The BSI sends an email to the entered address, which is signed with their OpenPGP key, and contains the four-digit code in the subject line. (The mail doesn’t contain the password.) The OpenPGP signature and the code in the subject line make sure that the email is really coming from the BSI (phishers already send emails in the name of the BSI). But besides that, is this process really a good practice? As far as I can see, it has two problems: It’s not known if the list contains logins for email providers or for other sites (shops etc.). But if these would be logins for the email accounts (or if people use the same password there), the thiefs could control the email account and filter out any email coming from the BSI, right? So these people would never notice that their data is contained in BSI’s list. So people that don’t get a mail can’t be sure if their data is not in the list or if the mail got intercepted (unless they change their password before even entering their email address in the test). And as they don’t send the password contained in the list, users (that use unique passwords for each site) can’t know which of their accounts are affected (→ many sites use the email address as username). So people would have to change their passwords on all sites using their email address as username. Am I right? Or are there good reasons why they handle it like that? Could the process be improved? Are there any best practices for such situations where the data of many different services is involved (and not only from a single provider)?
If I'm using Skype, Facebook, or another type of communication at my work, can the network administrator see my Skype and Facebook conversations, although its encrypted with SSL? I found this text: If your company is serious about security then it may have installed a more advanced proxy like Blue Coat's ProxySG. Such systems perform a Man-in-the-Middle attack by dynamically generating a fake certificate for the target server. This gives them access to the complete data, as if there was no SSL. If I installed my own computer from scratch, is the method above still possible? Is there a way to protect myself from it? Is there any way to see that my connection to my bank or Facebook is truly protected by SSL and that I'm using the correct certificate?
When conducting a penetration test, I run into difficulties because the defense system can identify an attack due to the high rate of requests, and then block the IP address Is there a way to avoid this detection?
I recently encountered some news about the recently new Ransomware called CryptoDefense: it uses RSA 2048 to encrypt your valuables and offers the private key for a price. (It's already been solved since the private key is apparently cached locally) My question however is how does this software actually encrypt large files of an arbitrary size such as photos and word documents that can be 1MB+ in file size with an RSA 2048 key? Is it actually RSA + AES or is it only using RSA 2048 by splitting files into small blocks somehow? I've tried to find a detailed analysis of the software on Google by failed to find anything useful since almost all articles are fixated on it's insecure RSA mechanisms or bitcoin profits.
We're considering a 2 factor TOTP solution on a mobile phone. However, it would be much easier for the user to somehow send the OTP to the server by pushing a button, rather than manually typing in a code. Of course this would require an internet connection, but it would make it a much more user friendly solution. Is there such a solution? And does it have any negative security implications? Or are we better of using some sort of push-based solution like Duo push?
For the last two days I've been seeing lots of lines in my /var/log/auth.log that look like: sshd[xxxxx]: error: connect_to 0.gravatar.com port 80: failed sshd[xxxxx]: error: connect_to 1.gravatar.com port 80: failed sshd[xxxxx]: error: connect_to 2.gravatar.com port 80: failed I don't think anything on my server uses gravatar, and even if it did I don't see why sshd should be involved. Further, the reports showed up "randomly" and there's been around 100 failed attempts for each gravatar address per day. I've tried doing a bit of diagnostics myself, but I'm not an expert. I tried looking for scripts which use gravatar (with grep on my web directory) and haven't found anything (which is extra suspicious). While digging I found two directories that I'm concerned about: /tmp/.X11-unix /tmp/.ICE-unix I thought I disabled X11 on my server since I don't use it, and I have nothing to do with the IRC or anything else that I can imagine would be in .ICE-unix. There's nothing in either directory, but their very existence is suspicious to me (possibly due to my own ignorance). I can't find any other evidence that I've been hacked, and I thought I ran a pretty tight ship, but I'm obviously concerned about this. I run a Debian server and I make sure every single package is updated every week. I'm new to this site and to investigating a hack, so I appreciate your patience and if there's anything I can do to help you help me, please let me know (I'll let you know that I've read tons of articles and tried as hard on my own as I could before asking here, because I value all of your time).
How do I mount my iphone to look at it's files forensically? I have FTK Imager (the only free program I could find) but it doesnt mount it as a drive and I can't seem to take a forensic image of the iphone. I am looking to get the cell tower logs (Cells.plist) file and I cant find a program or method to do it. The phone is not jailbroken and I do not want to do so. I have tried FTK on the windows PC with no luck. I have tried many things on my mac but no dice. Moreover, I cant seem to get the iphone to display in 'devices' on the mac either (although the Iexplorer program works but just not accessing the real good files). What am I not understanding here? Is there a way to take an image of the iphone itself (and not just its storage partition)? Edit: Tools like Oxygen, AccessData, Encase, etc supposedly allow the more in depth analysis (such as the cell tower logs) but I cannot find a solution that is not thousands of dollars! Also, Oxygen has a 'free' version but that only allows access to the crap you can find with Iexplorer anyway...
On my old ISP's DNS servers, sometimes https://www.facebook.com would return a cert for Akamai instead of Facebook. What I don't understand is that changing my DNS server to Googles (8.8.8.8) fixes the issue. Any ideas? I have reproduced this on more than one occasion, but I still wouldn't rule it out as being mere coincidence.
I have a small number of employees who use a company computer but these people aren't very tech-savvy. They use an email client and a messaging client. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't click on a .exe or .zip file in an email without thinking, and I know that's one area of concern. However, I'm thinking about images. In fact, regardless of how capable a person is with technology, I believe that attaching things (code or anything else) to an image can be a security risk. What can be attached to images to harm another? I believe that images can pose a security risk as they 'automatically execute' or something. There are so many ways that images can be received by a computer (or a phone or tablet, of course): email iMessage (or any other messaging app) someone right-clicking and saving an image from a web page just viewing a web page of course downloads the image to cache What precautions do I need to take regarding the above four things? Can someone just attach some code to an image and it execute? What do I need to do to prevent images being used against my computers? I'm guessing you couldn't just attach code to an image and iMessage someone's iPhone. What about Android?
Is it possible, using some program or application, to lock Windows 7 so only a specific app can be used, for example Word, until a password is entered?
I read a lot about viruses being illegal, but at what point does a piece of code become a virus and become illegal? Information enters and leaves our computers on a daily basis and often times some information from our computer will enter someone elses computer in some form via the internet. Is there a legal definition of a virus and what is considered to be illegal? Is it only when the virus steals information of causes some malicious harm that it is illegal?
In relation to this GitHub issue on the Gittip project (which turned out to be a false alarm), what are the security implications, if any, of hardcoding into the git repo a test app's OAuth consumer key and secret for each provider that we use. The intention is to make it as simple as possible for a new developer to spin up a working development environment, and asking them to create a bunch of OAuth apps seemed undesirable. For what it's worth, the details are as follows: assume local site development only (no remote data stores) providers include Twitter, GitHub, OpenStreetMaps, Bitbucket, Venmo, among others publicized secrets are only for testing apps
What are some simple methods of preventing my computer from being infected by USB drives and other storage devices? I'm not asking for any bullet-proof methods, just something that can prevent infection in the majority of cases. For example, one thing I do is to create a folder named Autorun.inf on all my partitions and all of my USB drives. This is to prevent an Autorun.inf file from being created, or at the very least have a quick way of knowing I've been infected — if the folder is missing, something is wrong.
If you haven't heard of the Heartbleed Bug, it's something to take a look at immediately. It essentially means that an attacker can exploit a vulnerability in many versions of OpenSSL to be able to gain access to a server's private key. It is not a theoretical threat, it is a demonstrable and reproducible threat. See the above link for more information. The question I think most organizations are asking themselves is the following: Does every company now need to create new public/private keypairs and ask their CA to invalidate the original signed keypairs?
CVE-2014-0160 http://heartbleed.com This is supposed to be a canonical question on dealing with the Heartbeat exploit. I run an Apache web server with OpenSSL, as well as a few other utilities relying on OpenSSL (as client). What should I do to mitigate the risks? The bug dissected Check if your site is vulnerable (Duckduckgo.com is, for instance!) I looked at some of the data dumps from vulnerable sites, and it was ... bad. I saw emails, passwords, password hints. SSL keys and session cookies. Important servers brimming with visitor IPs. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, c-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. I should probably patch OpenSSL. Credit: XKCD.
What should a website operator do about the Heartbleed OpenSSL exploit? mainly talks about what people running websites should do about Heartbleed. What should end-users of websites be doing? Do they need to change their passwords? If so, should they be logging into websites and changing passwords immediately? Or should they wait until their websites have changed their sites to be more secure, and then change their passwords? (I'm https://security.stackexchange.com/users/8335/andrew-grimm , but posting as a guest, because I'm not already logged in, wordpress openID isn't working, and I don't want to use a password just after Heartbleed has been announced)
OK, so I first heard about heartbleed a few hours ago through the stack exchange questions feed, and after a moments panic, realised that the only web servers I have secured via OpenSSL are on the internal network. Patched anyway, but now I have been scratching my head on whether or not other services are vulnerable. Specifically I am wondering about Router type devices such as: Cisco ASA's DD-WRT routers NAS's with VPN support I believe some of these use OpenSSL for things like SSH, point to point or site to site VPN's, the mini web servers they run for admin interface, etc. But I have been batting my head against a wall trying to find the versions running on them. For instance, on our DD-WRT device, I have been unable to even find an OpenSSL command in the filesystem, so maybe I am wrong on them using OpenSSL at all. I am fairly sure that ASA's running 8.4 are on 0.9.8 and thus safe (but would really like confirmation as, again, I was unable to find this for certain in the ASDM or telnet interfaces), and if that's true I suppose we can assume older versions of ASA will be similarly safe. Does anyone have any information on these kind of devices? Edit: I've been reading these meta questions (they're on SO, but I think they may be stack-agnostic, as it were) to try to figure out what the best practise is here, as I think the correct answer may actually be a combination of what's here. That's probably my fault as much as any, because I suppose this is actually a compound question itself. I've considered posting my own answer and accepting it combining the available information about several devices, plus what I found about the exact affected DD-WRT build numbers, but I wonder if that's not kind of rude considering that you guys have supplied most of it and that way I deny EVERYONE the accepted answer rep. I know the accepted practise (from those meta.SO links) seems to be to pick a best one by my own conditions and upvote the rest (the latter of which is done), but different answers here are equally good for different parts of my question. Any thoughts? (Even, should this edit be a meta.sec question of it's own? I hesitate to do that when the question seems to be asked so many times already on other meta's)
Does the Heartbleed bug affect WiFi networks secured by WPA2-EAP in TLS mode? Since it's using TLS to secure connections between the server and clients, is it possible to attack the server using the Heartbleed attack and read the memory, stealing the private SSL key from the server?
I've just installed the Perspetive addon in firefox. When I'm vistit, for example google, Perspective says the following message: Warning: Perspectives has NOT seen this certificate consistently. What does that mean? Is my connection secure or what? How can I make sure of that my SSL-encryption is secured and not faked? I have compared the fingerprints from different sites, like google and facebook, and there are not the same. Is that Ok?
According to http://heartbleed.com/, memory contents can be leaked from the server to the client and vice versa. Say that I have been banking in a separate browser profile (but under the same user). If another browser profile happened to be targeted by the Heartbleed attack, does this mean that my banking session was possibly compromised? Does it matter whether Linux, Windows or something else is used?
I need to store some sensitive user data in an SQL database and am looking into how to best secure it. From what I've read here, the obvious way to do this would be to encrypt the data using the user's password. But I still need the Administrator to be able to access and potentially modify this data which would not be possible with this method. Is there anything else I can do or do I have to resort to storing everything in plain text? What would be the best way to secure user data from attackers while still allowing the admin to access it?
I'm working on a website which was built few years ago in PHP and its riddled with vulnerabilities all over the place. Someone has already gained access to the admin panel and we want to secure the websites, and prevent future break-ins. Simplest, but tedious solution is to go through each file manually and replace all mysql queries with prepared queries and sanitize all inputs. However, I want to know if there's a simpler solution which could act as a layer between user input (GET, POST, COOKIE, SERVER) and the website logic, and filter out all suspicious looking input data. I did some research and came across PHPIDS, but I couldn't figure out if it had ability to sanitize the inputs too. Is PHPIDS ideal for this task? Is there something better that suits this purpose?
I need to identify the SQLI, DoS, XSS attacks from log file. At which field these attacks will reflect in log file. Please suggest me some idea and send materials to me.
We're analysing issue at work and I wondering how to find out if there's any binary with a statically compiled version of openssl which includes this bug. Would it be possible to find a fingerprint from the code which contains the bug?
I've been hearing more about the OpenSSL Heartbleed attack, which exploits some flaw in the heartbeat step of TLS. If you haven't heard of it, it allows people to: Steal OpenSSL private keys Steal OpenSSL secondary keys Retrieve up to 64kb of memory from the affected server As a result, decrypt all traffic between the server and client(s) The commit to OpenSSL which fixes this issue is here I'm a bit unclear - everything I've read contains information about what one should do about it, but not how it works. So, how does this attack work?
If I have a web crawler (using a non-patched version of OpenSSL) that can be coaxed to connect to an evil https-site, can they get everything from my process memory? To attack a server you can keep reconnecting to get more 64kb blocks (if I understand correctly), but can a client be forced to reconnect many times, to get more blocks?
When accepting public keys from someone setting up an identity provider for access to resources protected by a service provider using SAML 2.0, do you absolutely need to have a unique certificate? Is this covered in the SAML specifications? If they don't, I assume that use of certificates as a layer of defense is rendered void. An example might be someone setting up a test IdP and reusing the certificate for production.
From what I know, the HeartBleed bug seems to occur around 15 hours ago. As per heartbleed.com, the HeartBleed bug was independently discovered by a team of security engineers at Codenomicon. How did the public came to know about the news? Where is the first online reference to the "HeartBleed" bug?
If I'm using 16-18 character-length passwords with 94 different possible values-per-character (lower alphas, upper alphas, numbers, and special characters), is there an equation I can use to calculate how many times a series of the same value will be presented? What I'm trying to find out is with granular password complexity programs, you can specify the max number of characters that can be seen adjacent to each other before they are discarded. What I want to know is, if a low value (e.g. 2) is used, how severly does this impact the key space for resistence against brute force attacks. As in, in a 16 character password's keyspace of 94^16, if the number of same-values can't be 2 or more, how many possible passwords are removed from the available passwords an attacker has to use? e.g. in the case of 2 same-value characters, the following passwords would be rejected: 12345667890abcdefgWW - because of the 66 and WW sadfl;jkxz089--qwer - because of the -- a;lksdjf%%;slkdaj;;zlc - because of the %% and ;; 2134@!#$SAf;ljkasdf$$$$cQ - because of the $$$$ ...is there an equation to perform this type of calculation?
For this question, please assume I have followed every possible security measure to secure my Linux server. Only I have access to the web server via one open SSH port. If there are security issues then that's a separate issue. I'm using a cloud server - which I believe is server virtualisation. Now, I take my brilliantly secured server and I set a file/folder to 777 that's NOT publicly accessible (e.g. a cache folder for a server-side framework). 777 I believe allows 'world' access, but because I'm the only person that can access the server then does it matter that I set the folder to 777 world access? I'm guessing if the file was in the public area of a web server then this wouldn't be a good idea, but I can't see an issue if it's in the non-public area. In fact, surely I could 777 every non-public file and rely on the fact that only I have access anyway? Of course I'm not going to so this, but my point is surely that file permissions are superseded by the fact nobody else can access the server anyway. Also, does it make a difference that I'm using server virtualisation? Is this less secure? Can other people who are sharing the same server as me see my files because I'm using 777 permission? Basically I often get file permission problems when the server-side framework's code needs to write to folders (e.g. cache). 777 fixes it every time, but I want to ensure that I'm making the best decision and not just taking the easy way out.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.