Split (1)

train · 180k rows

instruction stringlengths 24 29.9k
I know nmap is a port scanner and its output shows all the open ports, the services running on those ports, the underlying OS and technology, etc. What should one take from this result in easiest possible terms especially if someone is from application security background? This question may sound stupid but I would prefer if people can connect all the dots from an adversary perspective. Kind Regards,
message confidentiality message integrity message authentication non-repudiation The 4 services are related in the sense that one services often implies/provides another. Indicate for each service which of the three other services are also provided? Message integrity means that message has been send and received without any manipulation or modification in the message content, while message confidentiality means that cannot be seen by any unauthorized parties, so confidentiality implies integrity and vice versa. Message authentication is guaranteeing the identity of the end user which by implementing it we provide confidentiality. Non-repudiation implies authentication as the sender and receiver cannot deny a transmitted message.
The OWASP state that open redirect is a vulnerability: An open redirect is an application that takes a parameter and redirects a user to the parameter value without any validation. This vulnerability is used in phishing attacks to get users to visit malicious sites without realizing it. However, it's trivial for an attacker to create a phishing URL and get it shortened, thus "get[ting] users to visit malicious sites without realizing it". Does this mean that all URL shorteners (e.g bit.ly, goo.gl, etc) are by definition vulnerable? How can a URL shortener be fixed/modified such that it does not violate OWASP?
I'm overhauling our absolute time-bomb of an order processing system that would put us out of business tomorrow were we audited for PCI compliance. It's so amateur it's scary. I'm planning on making a case to the higher-ups that the liabilities of storing CC information outweigh the conveniences of not having to re-ask the customer for numbers, but I know I'm going to get asked how vendors like Amazon and such get away with storing information for repeat purchases, and I have no answer to this. So, how do vendors like Amazon and everybody else who bills monthly authorize future charges without storing things like CVV info, which is expressly forbidden by PCI DSS v3? I read elsewhere that tokens can be created and stored in lieu of stripe info, but isn't possession of a token representing the contents of the stripe just as valuable as the stripe info itself? Anybody with possession of the token could make fraudulent charges, so who cares whether they have that or the actual CC/CVV info? Or is token conversion just a way of saying "we're not storing the actual PAN/CVV" and passing along regulatory compliance issues to whoever issued it?
I want to buy a antivirus for my laptop.but I am in a fix.I want to buy such a antivirus that doesn't slow my laptop much.laptop configaration :processor core i5,Ram 4GB,operating system windows 7।please suggest me some best antiviruses. ..
According to RFC 5246, 7.1. Change Cipher Spec Protocol: The ChangeCipherSpec message is sent during the handshake after the security parameters have been agreed upon, but before the verifying Finished message is sent. And 6.1. Connection States: A TLS connection state is the operating environment of the TLS Record Protocol. It specifies a compression algorithm, an encryption algorithm, and a MAC algorithm.... All records are processed under the current read and write states. The security parameters for the pending states can be set by the TLS Handshake Protocol, and the ChangeCipherSpec can selectively make either of the pending states current, in which case the appropriate current state is disposed of and replaced with the pending state; the pending state is then reinitialized to an empty state. It is illegal to make a state that has not been initialized with security parameters a current state. The initial current state always specifies that no encryption, compression, or MAC will be used. ChangeCipherSpec is not covered by the Finished message. From 7.4.9. Finished: Note: ChangeCipherSpec messages, alerts, and any other record types are not handshake messages and are not included in the hash computations. Forgive my ignorance, but how exactly is the ChangeCipherSpec authenticated?
To log in to our web app, our security team is insisting on 2FA as it is hosted on our internal network. The proposed solution is to have a standard username (email address) and password login, which will then trigger a four digit PIN emailed to the user which they will have to enter to log in. To my mind that is two sides of the same coin (something the users knows) - using the email address, rather than sending the PIN to a phone number or a physical token. Is this strictly 2FA? Is it just a negative experience to the user interrupting the login process flow in return for little gain in terms of security?
I am wondering if I did a Nessus scan using a Windows machine how it would log in to a Linux based device. Windows does not have a native ssh client. I am aware that Nessus will log into systems given credentials and scan from the inside out. Does Nessus install a ssh client or does it simply do external scan? I am particularly wondering about Linux variant devices such as CISCO switches. In an ideal environment http and telnet admin are turned off to reduce the attack area.
I've been reading Whonix's documentation and threads here to be more anonymous and secure. For the best anonymity Whonix recommends having two different computers, one being the gateway and the other being the workstation. On the workstation, for the best anonymity and security, would it be wise to run Tails as a LiveCD or USB, along with the Whonix setup? I was unsure whether I should run Tails in a VM under Whonix workstation, run Tails as a LiveCD and the Whonix workstation as a VM, or just run Tails/the Whonix workstation. I assume that would provide the benefits of both operating systems? I'm not sure. (I've also had thoughts about running QubesOS and/or corridor as well, but then I had the thought that multiple types of OS's might increase my attack area). I have my gateway planned and almost setup but I do not have my workstation setup. (As a side note, when referring to Tor -> Tails over Tails -> Tor for security, does that mean to run Tails as a LiveCD and use Tor browser, or use Vidalia and Tails in a VM? I'm guessing the former. I know Tails > Tor is Tor in Tails, however I couldn't come up with any way to do Tor > Tails without using my setup at the beginning of the post.) Which configuration that I have mentioned or your own idea provides the most anonymity?
The status quo is that most online websites limit login attempts per IP address, or even per account since some attackers possess huge amounts of IP addresses. Removing login limits would have the advantage that attackers would no longer be able to fraudulently deny access (availability) to legitimate users, be it by IP address or by account. OWASP declares: When multi-factor is implemented and active, account lockout may no longer be necessary. How true is this statement? Does it mean that if our website employs mandatory multi-factor authentication (e.g. Google Authenticator), we can then safely remove our "IP address login limit" and "per account login limit" mechanism? Is it still possible to brute force through multi-factor authentication if there are no login limits?
I want to know about some of the good resources for pen-testing cloud based services or web-apps (such as AWS). I googled for it but there are really few good resources out there. For example, I liked this article by SANS: http://pen-testing.sans.org/blog/2012/07/05/pen-testing-in-the-cloud Apart from this, does anyone have good resources for pen-testing cloud based services/web-apps? It would also be great if someone could share their experience of performing a pen-test on service/web-app hosted on the cloud.
I am currently reading "Metasploit: The Penetration Tester's Guide" and I came across the following paragraph in the book (in the 1st chapter) During intelligence gathering, you attempt to identify what protection mechanisms are in place at the target by slowly starting to probe its systems. For example, an organization will often only allow traffic on a certain subset of ports on externally facing devices, and if you query the organization on any- thing other than a whitelisted port, you will be blocked. It is generally a good idea to test this blocking behavior by initially probing from an expendable IP address that you are willing to have blocked or detected. The same holds true when you’re testing web applications, where, after a certain threshold, the web application firewalls will block you from making further requests. I can imagine doing this using the Tor network or may be a proxy (or may be a bot network, provided you have one :-P ) but honestly, I am not aware of any tools by which I could scan a web app, and if I get blocked, I could generate a new IP and do the scan again. Are there any tools/methods which let me do so. Please pardon my lack of knowledge, it really feels like a foolish question but I don't know if such tools/methods exist.
I am trying to implement a copy protection (or licensing) mechanism for an android app. The app is not distributed through Google Play or other online market and instead it is distributed through media such as CD/DVD. So we cannot employ market based licensing methods. The app is a learning app for different levels of education. Students purchase the app media and install the app to their devices (an android tablet) over a USB cable. Students have limited access to Internet so we cannot force them to connect to our servers except one time for app activation over school wireless connectivity. I know that there is no hack proof mechanism for piracy protection specifically for off-line scenarios and the app price is too low as well as target audiences are students without professional knowledge of hacking or cracking, though my client is willing to protect the app somehow as strong as possible. I think the mechanism must be something like Machine Locking Scheme but I do not know what the best method is. Any help or suggestion will be appreciated.
I'm creating a file storage site and what I would do is just have the download links format as: https://www.domain.com/[id]/[file name] //id would just be 1, 2, 3 etc. Dropbox and many others have it similarly except that the IDs are long / hashed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/23d3kaz4adw9deq/anyfile.txt Is there any (security) reason behind for having it that way? I was thinking maybe they do it like that so that people can't just increment the id by 1 and just download everything they come across which would result in unnecessarily losing of more bandwidth. But that is not the case, because both the ID and FILE NAME need to match, and file names aren't easily guessable.
The management at work are asking, "How can we send files easily and safely to each other?", arguing that: Putting attachments in email is not safe. They want to send links instead They want to refer to a central, latest version of a file, rather than sending a copy They want to be able to read the file both on laptops and iPads They want to share files with people outside the company The problem is: Sending links (to a shared network drive) is not straight forward in Microsoft Office. You need OneDrive for this, and sometimes you don't get the file:// prefix. Also, links won't work on Macs. iPads don't have access to the shared network drive. You could use http, but how do you refer to this while working from Office? Plus, you don't want to expose your network drive on the Internet. We can't grant external people access to our systems A possible solution is to use Sharepoint, but this is a big step. Same goes for Google Drive. It would take forever to convert our document base. What is the recommended approach? Are we stuck with attachments? Does mail encryption or file passwords make any major difference as far as security goes? UPDATE: Based on replies, I should point out that by "unsafe", the management isn't referring to the risk of clicking a malware attachment, but to the fear of their sensitive files getting in the hands of the wrong people. They argue that it's easier for an attachment to get lost or intercepted, than for a link. This would assume that the security regime for the server hosting the link is stronger than that for the email client on whatever device they are using. I'd like to hear comments on this.
I hope you won't close the question. Even though there are no computers involved, it is still about information and security, and I think that security experts are the ones who will be able to help best. I want to do some user research. I need people to fill out a questionnaire, and then fill out another questionnaire two months later. I need to guarantee them anonymity, but it will still be very good if I can match the answers from a person from round A to answers from the same person from round B. Even if this is done online, I don't think that I can let a computer system find out something about them so it can do the matching for me. In theory, I could ask them for a name and store its md5 hash. In practice, if I tell the participants they will be anonymous and then ask them for a name, I will lose their trust. And the beginning of a questionnaire is not a good place to educate random people about what md5 is. But to make this even harder, I think that I will do my next survey using pen and paper, for logistical reasons. If I started giving people tokens, I think they will lose them during the two months. So the best solution I can think of is some sort of manual hash. For example, I could ask them "please fill the second and fifth letter of your surname and the day of month you were born". So my question is, how do I come up with a good function of this kind? which data points about a person can be used? They must be guaranteed to exist (my above example breaks down if the person has a four-letter surname), highly individual (but not 100% unique), and the person must know them without having to look them up somewhere. Is there some convenient way to calculate how many digits/letters I need to ask for to ensure a collision chance below X% in a group of Y people? Are some of the possible data more problematic than others? For example, could it be that people would be more reluctant to write down the first letter of their surname than the second, because they think it would be easy for someone to try to look them up in a "brute force attack" and find out who they are? How do I find out the highest level of complexity beyond which people either don't play along or start making mistakes?
I want to block some part of a website or some videos from dailymotion or other site video sites. Type of network I have 7-8 devices(PCs, Mobiles, iPhones & tablets) all connected to a router (Tenda W150d) with wire or with wifi. I dont have a seperate server like offices to control traffic. Problems I can block websites on a single pc by some software but can't do that on mobile devices. I can not use a separate server turned on 24 hour Note: I can buy a new router with reasonable price ($40-$50), suggest me if any of these can do what i want. This link seems good and i can afford it but not sure if it blocks urls.
Some days ago, I was studying Web Programming for academic purposes. So I was learning SQL Injection by applying it on a sample website sqlzoo.net/hack/ But soon after it, in the Google ads on every page, every ad has been of "acunetix - Learn to prevent SQL Injection attacks". I don't get ads of other categories. Why do I only get ads of how to protect my PC and relating to SQL injection? Amazed i am, I want to know how Google tracks my page transitions.
After reading many articles and watching many tutorials I decided to be specific because there are some things about SSL certificate chain verification and SSL cetificate verification in general that I couldn't verify against all the tutorials I have read nor the ones I watched. CASE 1: Let me take a case where I own a certificate from Verisign, after the verification process they gave me a public/private key pair. My server sends the public key(my certificate) to the browser, the browser own a copy of Verisign public key. The following questions may seem stupid, but there isn't consistency among tutorials and everytime I try to understand I got myself into another corner. How will the browser with Verisign public key is going to identify that my public key is indeed a valid Verisign key that can be used for encrypting messages that my Verisign private key can decrypt?, I assume its the Verisign public key digital signature that is tested against the server public key digital signature?, I may be wrong, but even if I am right I will be glad for a bit of clarification. In case its indeed the digital signature that is tested I assume there is a relationship between all of Verisign public keys?, or maybe there is only relationship between each public key Verisign assign to a specific client(website/device/etc) and the public key the browser/operating system including. CASE 2: Intermediate certificates. I understand that the need for them is security, so the root CA private key can stay offline, if there are more reasons i'll love to hear about them. About the chain verification, I assume the server public key digital signature is tested against the server intermediate certificate digital signature, if its valid now it is the turn for the intermediate certificate digital signature to be tested against the browser/operating system pre-installed public key digital signature, and if this is also valid, the client has successfully validate both the intermediate certificate and the public key of the server. I know i probably missed all up, if anyone can help me straight things up I will be very thankful.
According to this post (and to my personal experience), installing the Skype app on Facebook and the Skype client on OSX Mavericks will result in you being logged out from Facebook every time you launch the Skype client. This question is not only to warn you of such an issue but to discuss what this could imply. It is my understanding that no third-party application should have arbitrarily access to navigation cookies: since this looks like what's happening, I'd like to know: How exactly can the Skype client trigger such a response? How is this not a security issue?
Started using OpenVPN on my desktop computer and monitored the traffic with Microsoft network monitor. What I noticed, is that when the openvpn session is initialized, only connections established after this point are routed through the VPN. That is to say I had to restart Skype to get it to route traffic through OpenVPN. is there a way to make it terminate connections and re-establish them once the tunnel is up?
I am facing an XSS vulnerability in my ASP.Net Web application where the malicious code may be encrypted and html encoded Bottomline: I am trying to prevent XSS via code obfuscation. Question: I already know that I have to use HtmlDecode anyway.Is there a way to decrypt and then Html decode such data in ASP.Net?
I am looking for a way to safely store personal information with low entropy safely. I have the following requirements for the data: Must be able to search (i.e. to look up an existing piece of data) but not view Other systems must be able to recover the real value The system must be reasonably well performant (options in seconds not hours) I think a system of encrypting the data using a public key is my best option. I can keep the private key offline so the individual value cannot be directly recovered. However I think that an attacker could use the encryption process as an oracle and recover the data due to its low entropy. Any ideas on how to improve the security of this system? Not collecting this data is not an option. There will be additional layers around this data (access control, logging, physical security, etc) so I am just focused on this part of the system.
How can I be sure my ISP encrypts my account password? I found out accidentally that mine did not. I had called to report an interruption in service, and in the process of "troubleshooting", the tech read my password off to me!! What can I do about this?
Is there any case-law where having or not having a legal notice (example here) in the login banner of a system of nay kind made a difference in prosecution? The question is in consideration both of "hacking" - "you must not access without authorization" and privacy - "everything is monited, no privacy expectations".
I would like to know if there is a DLP system that can monitor phone conversation, in order to search for sensitive data leakage by the company users to external users. We know NSA does that :) Is there a software/appliance that can handle such for a financial company against data leaks over phone calls? Thanks,
My father in law just had a problem,He clicked on a link in an email (he was using gmail on the version 35.0.1916.114m of Chrome), and suddenly the computer sort of went black, and possibly something downloaded. He says he didn't input his password. Later on, a whole bunch of phishing emails got sent out to his address book. One of the links were to http:// 107.183.4.211 /d/?xo=fe&mucoto=Z3VsYWJpc3JhbmlAZ21haWwuY29t &id=c2hyYXlyYWdpQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ== &mesugomabeca=c2hyYXlyYWdp He figured something was wrong and turned off the computer. When I turned it on, Windows 7 went into Safe Mode. I've since run a full scan using Microsoft Security Essentials - nothing shows up. There's nothing I found looking into Chrome history, or in the downloads folder. We've changed the important passwords and also moved to 2-factor authentication. Any suggestions on what I should do next ? Thanks Rahul
I do free/low-cost web/shell hosting as a non-profit organization (With a the same friend and co-founder) since 2007. We're on CentOS 6 + CPanel, and unfortunately we're still funding the organization from our own money. Since last year, we've noticed some strange subdomains, additional domains and parking domains created for phishing websites, we usually suspend or terminate them until we've noticed it was random and sometimes on trustworthy customers account or even ours (personal admin accounts). 2 months ago, we've rent a new and stronger server, reconfigured it from scratch and migrated the CPanel account, changed passwords, prevented root login without password ans changed our WHM access key, but the "strange" domains/subdomains are still appearing and BuyCpanel (our CPanel licence reseller) told us it seems to be a compromised server and we should investigate it. We would like to investigate it ourselves but we don't know where to start or how to trace the origin of "compromise", we've checked root connections, FTP connections, WHM connections, we can't find a trace of a script creating the subdomains. Can you give us some advices? Thanks
According to the CJIS Security Policy - Access Enforcement The information system shall enforce assigned authorizations for controlling access to the system and contained information. The information system controls shall restrict access to privileged functions (deployed in hardware, software, and firmware) and security-relevant information to explicitly authorized personnel. Access control policies (e.g., identity-based policies, role-based policies, rule- based policies) and associated access enforcement mechanisms (e.g., access control lists, access control matrices, cryptography) shall be employed by agencies to control access between users (or processes acting on behalf of users) and objects (e.g., devices, files, records, processes, programs, domains) in the information system. Agencies shall control access to CJI based on one or more of the following: Job assignment or function (i.e., the role) of the user seeking access Physical location Logical location Network addresses (e.g., users from sites within a given agency may be permitted greater access than those from outside) Time-of-day and day-of-week/month restrictions Are physical location and logical location are being referred as Physical address and Logical Address here? How these are different from Network Addresses. Can someone please give the scenarios to make website compliant with CJIS Security Policy?
Is being online all the time the root of all evil, when it comes down to private computer clients security? Would a not-always-connected-to-the-internet system, solve most of our problems? In a concrete situation, I'd have a net computer (maybe booting from a Live CD) and a work computer (without internet). Both systems would be able to mount a common file system to interchange information, which would be encrypted. Excluding an evil BIOS, there is not much I can imagine that makes this computer vulnerable.
I'm going to preface this by saying I have absolutely no clue when it comes to cryptography, but I'm posting this question because I'm very interested and I have no doubt there are some smart people on here who will be able to explain this to me like I'm 5. So to my understanding md5 is considered insecure because of how quickly things can be hashed, which means brute force attacks are very easy and attackers could even compare a hashed md5 password against a pre-generated table. Which is why when (using php) I compute md5("password"); and it gives me 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99I can plug that value in to a site like this and in 45ms it spits back 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99 MD5 : password But what if I add some "helper" data to the beginning and end of my password? <?php $helper = "Qw3r7y1uioP[4]AsdfGh5jkl3'z7xcvb9nm,.?"; echo md5($helper."password".$helper); ?> It returns 9f1f60fc8d76caa77b11810a0d68e0c5 (which the same site can't decrypt, though I'm not sure if rainbow tables could, seems unlikely though right?) which I could then store, along with the "helper" to compare to future password sent by post: <?php $helper = "Qw3r7y1uioP[4]AsdfGh5jkl3'z7xcvb9nm,.?"; $accepted = "9f1f60fc8d76caa77b11810a0d68e0c5"; $pass = $_POST["password"]; if (md5($helper.$pass.$helper)==$accepted) { echo "Password was correct."; } else { echo "Password was incorrect."; } ?> What is wrong with this approach? I'm sure there is some reason that it isn't a good idea, I just don't have enough understanding of how md5 and cryptography in general works to pinpoint why.
I am trying to look at traffic between my phone and the outside world, and for whatever reason I can't see the outside world's traffic coming in. I am running Wireshark on a Kali box, I turned on the monitor mode interface, and then setup Wireshark to capture. I can see the outgoing traffic just fine, but can't see the responses, e.g. SYN and ACK messages, but no SYN/ACK. I tried using a display filter with ip.addr==w.x.y.z, but the only traffic captured had the phone's IP as the source, never the destination. Is there a setting I am missing somewhere? Could this possibly be a hardware limitation that is preventing the capture of inbound traffic? I ran many Google searches, but all I could find were results on not being able to see outbound traffic. Edit Here is a rough diagram of the network layout- Traffic between devices Phone <------------------------> Wifi Hotspot \| \| \| Kali sniffing Traffic Traffic goes from the phone to the hotspot and back with Kali listening in. Kali can see the traffic from the phone to hotspot, but isn't seeing the hotspot to phone traffic. In other words, the source address is always the phone's IP. As I said above, I used the ip.addr== filter which from everything I've read is supposed to show traffic to and from the device.
As a software company who is looking at writing something that could handle debit cards can I self certify my software or do I have to have it tested by a 3rd party company?
Snort, daq and WinPcap are installed. The rule files are located at a convenient place. How can I solve this problem? A clue is the ERROR line: Missing/incorrect dynamic engine lib specifier.
For debugging purposes, one might be asked to put the output of strace for some process online, i.e. attached to a bug report. Is this safe in general? Under what circumstances is this safe or unsafe, and how would I process a strace-logfile to make sure it is safe to put online? (I suppose it might depend on the application)
Some of the old PHP string functions for example explode() are working with UTF-8 strings, but they don't work properly on malformed UTF-8 strings. Is this a security issue? Is it possible to avoid string validation with malformed UTF-8 strings somehow? It is hard to make a list of this functions. I think every core PHP string function is affected somehow. For example strpos does not give the right position in a string, strlen, does not give the right length. So I guess htmlentities, htmlspecialchars, etc... are affected as well, but it is more complicated, because some of them has an UTF-8 flag, some of them is not UTF-8 compatible, like strpos, some of them does not work with malformed UTF-8, etc... I can do a search after I have a working example, so that's what I am looking for. It is enough for me for instance something like: send 2 malformed string to the server, which in theory I cannot check with these functions concat them with implode, and get something malicious, for example XSS. Is this possible? I don't understand fully how UTF-8 or how malformed UTF-8 works...
After watching videos and downloading just about every possible pen-testing tool out there to play around with and learn. How do you setup test beds and practice scenarios to crack? With RE people make crackme.exe files. I was curious do people have virtual machine templates and other setups created for download that you can practice cracking.
I have an ATT U-Verse Wireless router supplying 5 computers throughout my home. It is hardwired to my main computer. I have three children of all ages, one of which has had a tendency to make poor decisions on websites, email, and internet chatting. We have discussed the issue, but I am of the 'trust but verify' mindset at this point
I've played around with metasploit simply as a hobby but am wondering if actual pentesters and/or hackers actually use metasploit to get into systems or do they write their own post exploitation modules or their own programs entirely? Reason I ask is because metasploit does not seem to be able to selectively clear windows event logs and such, or perhaps I just couldn't find it.(the nearest I can find is clearev but that simply wipes out everything which isn't very sneaky) Besides, even if it is able to selectively clear the event logs there will be places like the prefetch queue in ring 0 where forensics will be able to find what I did from the system image...
Github pages is now using github.io domain instead of github.com I've read github explanation but it's still difficult for me to understand the root cause. Why would a domain become a security issue?
A lot of articles underline that XSS vulnerabilities can be very dangerous for the website on which they exist. I wonder how much is this true when we find these XSS vulnerabilities on the frontend of a website, in fields such as the search forms?
I'm looking for hints to solve my problem. I would like to trace all devices that are in my surroundings. I know how do it when someone already access to my WiFi network, but I'm also interested to see all other devices. My idea is to trace mac address of all devices (associated and not associated to my AP). I assume that mac address is broadcasted by any device with WiFi network card independently of connection to the WiFi network and is primal for network card. I also assume that I can buy AP that can "see" it and finally log to the file. Thanks for any hints.
I was looking for a form on the US Department of Transportations website, and I came to a page that gave me an error, with a full debug report and stack trace. Hopefully, you can get the same result by going to the page as well: http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/air-travel-complaint-comment-form If not, I've included two screenshots of the page (it wouldn't fit into 1) Can this result in a breach of security or is it a non-issue (just an inconvenience and unprofessional page)? What sensitive information is there on the page and how can it be exploited? I am asking from a purely academic perspective, and have no intention of trying to enter unlawfully into the DOT's site.
While trying to understand some SNORT rule lines, I came across the following syntax that I could not figure. Could not find any description in the manual (though admittedly I've not read it all throughly yet). Two examples with the parts in question highlighted. From sid:17166 pcre:"/(?P<var>\w+)\x2Ereplace\x28\s(?P=var)\s\x2C\s(?P=var)\s\x29/"; : ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ From sid:29503 pcre:"/removeChild$(?<element>\w{1,20})$.*(?P=element)\.getCharNumAtPosition/smi"; : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ It looks like the "? " part is connected with the latter use of the name as "?P=name". But, it is not consistent (as seen in the two cases above). References. sid:17166; reference:bugtraq,36343; reference:cve,2009-3075; sid:29503; reference:bugtraq,49213; reference:cve,2011-0084; reference:url,osvdb.org/show/osvdb/74581;
I have recently been trying to get my company ip addresses scanned with Comodo HackerGuardian. My website needed some adjustments to ssl but after they were made it passed the scan. As we also have a machine accessing a Virtual Terminal at our office premises I then scanned our LAN ip, but as we have no open ports on our outer firewall the HackerGuardian scan did not compete. I then adjusted the firewall to reject rather than drop the HackerGuardian scanner but the scan still failed to complete. I contacted HackerGuardian about this received the following response: Question: We have a Virtual Terminal inside our LAN and as I understand things we need to scan our LAN outer/perimeter firewall. Response: This is incorrect. Only Internet facing (externally accessible) hosts are in scope for PCI scanning by an ASV. Question: How can I scan this firewall's WAN ip address with HackerGuardian to make sure that the Virtual Terminal provider is happy? Response: This is not possible. Your virtual terminal software should be a pre-validated payment application. Our office network has a WAN IP address that is public routable with both forward and reverse DNS resolution and the IP address is also externally accessible enough to be reached by HackerGuardian’s scanner. Regardless of the fact that I do not have any ports open on our office network perimeter firewall I thought one of the reasons for scanning is confirm that this in in fact the case and there has not been a misconfiguration. What do people think is the correct or appropriate interpretation of the PCI rules?
I knew about the Metasploit Framework for a few years, but I never really got into it. I have some knowledge when it comes to networks, but I am not a Pro. I've tested some things with Metasploit and I was curious about one thing. (please correct me if I'm wrong) Let's say that Microsoft is releasing a new version of Internet Explorer. Somebody finds a vulnerability (buffer overflow), and with Metasploit (not only Metasploit, but yeah), I set the exploit, set the payload, set the parameters, type exploit, and I got a meterpreter shell. Ok, Internet Explorer has a vulnerability, but how is the connection between the exploit and the payload made? From what I know a buffer overflow is just something that is crashing the application, but how does it go from crashing an application to a connection back to the hacker's computer?
Let's say I get a new computer that's never been connected to the internet before. The first time I connect it to the internet, is it susceptible to a mitm attack while downloading its public key certificates from a certificate authority? I assume that once the computer gets the certificate authority's public key certificate, it can connect securely and download more certificates for other sites. But how does it securely download the first certificate?
SPOILER ALERT: This question contains an answer to one of the problems from the Google's XSS Challenge! Please stop reading further if you're not interested in knowing the answer right now. I'm able to get pass the level 4 of the challenge, however, I still don't know how exactly the exploit is working. The following is the code from Google's XSS challenge - Level 4: <!doctype html> <html> <head> <!-- Internal game scripts/styles, mostly boring stuff --> <script src="/static/game-frame.js"></script> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/game-frame-styles.css" /> <script> function startTimer(seconds) { seconds = parseInt(seconds) \|\| 3; setTimeout(function() { window.confirm("Time is up!"); window.history.back(); }, seconds * 1000); } </script> </head> <body id="level4"> <img src="/static/logos/level4.png" /> <br> <img src="/static/loading.gif" onload="startTimer('{{ timer }}');" /> <br> <div id="message">Your timer will execute in {{ timer }} seconds.</div> </body> </html> Basically, they are using Django framework (which uses a bunch of security measure against XSS). The variable timer carries the input from the user. The goal of this activity is to alert a message by sending a payload which can bypass Django's XSS security. I'm able to alert a message using one of the following payloads: ');alert('xss OR 3') \|\| alert('1 I'm able to clear the level using the above payloads but I'm still not sure where exactly the alert() method is being called? In the onload handler OR within the startTimer() method? I'm confused because if I check the source HTML of the page after submitting the payload, Django is encoding the payload: <html> <head> <!-- Internal game scripts/styles, mostly boring stuff --> <script src="/static/game-frame.js"></script> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/game-frame-styles.css" /> <script> function startTimer(seconds) { seconds = parseInt(seconds) \|\| 3; setTimeout(function() { window.confirm("Time is up!"); window.history.back(); }, seconds * 1000); } </script> </head> <body id="level4"> <img src="/static/logos/level4.png" /> <br> <img src="/static/loading.gif" onload="startTimer('');alert('xss');" /> <br> <div id="message">Your timer will execute in ');alert('xss seconds.</div> </body> </html>
I am developing an iOS application and web page, both use same Parse backend. Web page contains some functionality that is not available in the iOS application. Therefore I would like to present the user an option to open home page from app. As user has already logged in before in the app I would like to skip the login process when home page is opened. I have a solution in my head for which I would like your opinion. When the user clicks on a link in the app, the app would call e.g. generateToken function in Parse which would create a random token, store it DB with some expiration date for this user and return it to the app. The app would then open the web page with query parameter token=newly_generated_token or pass the token value in the http headers if that can be accomplished. On new request the server code would check if parameter (or header) token exists, check the db for token value and log in the appropriate user where match would be found. Afterwards the token would be invalidated. If the request would not contain any 'token' parameter the usual authentication would go through and login page would display. All comunication would be over https. I get rid of replay attack by invalidating token when used. Is it vulnerable to any other attacks? Or is there any other way of doing this? Any help appreciated. Thanks!
As stated on their website: DVNC is not encryption but is a new branch of cryptography and information science. DVNC employs a new paradigm in secret keeping to keep your data secured. I understand it is used like traditional cryptography to protect a message from being understood by an attacker, even if it is intercepted. However, I've went through their presentation and I don't understand what it is exactly and how it works. Can someone explain to me ?
In attempts to setup our first instance of NDES/SCEP in the wild on Cisco routers we have run into a concern. Currently our organization has a three tier PKI. We have an AD CS server on the third tier running NDES. All aspects of the system are functioning, but through discussion and testing we have a concern. How do Root and Intermediary CA certificates get updated on the end device? If we have a router configured and functioning with a trusted CA/RA using SCEP, but the issuing CA certificate is nearing expiration will the SCEP service execute the GetCACert command again to refresh the local cache of the issuing certificate? SCEP RFC (draft-nourse-scep-23)
I just received an email from a friend's email account that conforms with the standard hoax where the person says they are traveling, have been robbed, and need money to pay for the hotel bill to get their things released. I'm not sure that my friend would know yet as she is indeed traveling. Should I report this? To who? Thanks!
I want to know if it is possible in Elliptic curve cryptography to have 2 parties holding a part of the private key. The idea is to encrypt (for DSA) data with the 2 sub keys without any of the party getting hold of the original private key. For example: Issue a private key Split somehow the private key into 2 sub private keys Encrypt data with the first key Encrypt with the second key The end result should be like if data was encrypted with the original private key Is this thing possible? Ideally the 2 sub keys should be the size of the original private key and should not leak any information. Thanks edit: Sorry for not being clear, when speaking about encryption it was meant for DSA
I was browsing the web and suddenly I started seeing "Waiting for available sockets" error in Chrome with the page showing "Network Unavailable". I thought that was weird so I opened up Fiddler and saw these strange URLs. Is this something someone has already seen? Thanks.
With large computing power (like what you can get in the Amazon cloud for example) you can generate huge rainbow tables for passwords. There also seems to be some large rainbow tables reachable that you have to pay for. What are the largest tables that secret services could possibly use and what's the maximum characters you can have for the password? I am wondering how long passwords should be considered when you choose a new password yourself? (This is not the question here!) What is the maximum password-length those huge underground rainbow-tables (used by evil forces) are hosting?
For a any processor of these or any other processor armeabi (v7-A, Cortex A8); 2012 TI Sitara XAM3359AZCZ100; 1 x 1000MHz armeabi (v7-A, Cortex A9); 2012 VIA WonderMedia 8850; 1 x 1200MHz amd64; IB+AES (306a9); 2012 Intel Core i5-3210M; 2 x 2500MHz How can I calculate the time needed for RSA verification ? in another words How many clock cycles does RSA1024 with exponent of 65537 need to verify a message ? Sure Times will be different according to processor, that's why I asked for number of clock cycles How can I use these tables if they may help ? http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sign.html
I want to validate my SSL certificate each time I run API calls. I've been following this guide: http://artur.ejsmont.org/blog/content/how-to-properly-secure-remote-api-calls-from-php-application This is my code: $ch = curl_init(); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, "https://api-3t.sandbox.paypal.com/nvp"); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, ($apiCredentials . $nvpStr)); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1); //Returnerar resultatet istället för att skriva ut det curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER, true); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST, 2); curl_setopt($ch, curlopt_cainfo, (dirname(__FILE__) . '/cacert.pem')); $response = curl_exec($ch); The problem is that my SSL cert is not validated at all - it seems the file cacert.pem isn't even checked! I have changed name of the file, deleted it, and I've even tried editing it by removing all certificates in the cacert.pem file that are from my certificate issuer. The API call is still run no matter what! What might the problem be?
Convergence is a well-thought out system to replace certificate authorities built by Marlin Moxiespike back in 2011. Since it's debut, it seems to have largely stalled out, with no additional major notaries since the original pair and a total lack of adoption by the major browser vendors. The most critical piece of the web's encryption infrastructure is fundamentally broken. Not only is it trivial for script kiddies to perform MITM attacks, the lack of web encryption has enabled global dragnet surveillance. Why has this stalled out and why aren't the major browser vendors competing on this point?
AFAIK, our current disk encryption methods (dm-crypt) preserve the key (as well as decrypted data) in RAM while the computer is running with an implicit assumption that the memory is volatile and key will be lost along with decrypted data when computer is shut down. However, future advancements in technology may make volatile memory obsolete. Given operating-systems adapt to work without RAM in future, what are the ways to achieve disk decryption without volatile memory? Is it possible, or will we always need volatile memory for cryptography? [UPDATE] After thinking about this, I conclude that there are inherent properties in cryptography that necessitate the presence of a temporary insecure location. I don't think it is even theoretically possible to have algorithms that need to access the key once and be done with it without storing it in an insecure location. And that volatile insecure location also acts like a kill-switch. (*insecure = not encrypted).
I am trying to understand certificate pinning. Google started adding a whitelist of CA certs that they use for their certificates and if a cert for a google service is issued outside of this list they deny it. That is straightforward. But say I have a web site https://www.example.com how do I use certificate pinning to improve the security of HTTPS connections to my server? On any browser and not just Chrome. What kind of messages are exactly sent from the server to the client? Does HTTPs support pinning?
I have two WebServices that are hosted by two different applications. Both Applications access each other's webservices: Now both WebServices have to authenticate with each other. Different solutions came to mind. Create a Authentification Server Each application has a config file: Put a generated key in there. What are solutions for this problem?
Let's say users can define content of the style attribute, but in a constrained way. They can't break out of its value, as white-listing parser will remove any unsafe attributes/tags produced this way. Can they do XSS using just the style attribute value in modern browsers? With 'modern' being IE10+ and newest versions of other browsers.
When a system must go from a powered down state to a fully operational state without any human intervention it therefore needs access to usable authentication credentials unattended. The system must recover and boot automatically without human intervention so the credentials must be stored in a readable format on the file-system. We hear about passwords being hashed(+salted) at rest and encrypted in transmission but is encoding acceptable under the above scenario? For instance I was reading an article about WebSphere where they encode their system passwords using XOR and base64 and consider it as the best option. Encrypting WebSphere Application Server system passwords — if you insist Is encoding the best option for cases like this?
There are exerpts, that say that using https can be broken by the NSA by now. So is https still a solution for secure web-browsing? source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/nsa-has-cracked-the-encryption-protecting-your-bank-account-gmail-and-more/ Encryption techniques used by online banks, email providers, and many other sensitive Internet services to keep your personal data private and secure are no match for the National Security Agency
I want to capture all the traffic from an Android app for its pen-testing. How do I do that? Here's what I've already tried: I installed the app on an emulator and started the emulator with a http-proxy pointing to a local port. The local port had ZAP running on it. I'm able to intercept the traffic from the browser but not from the app. Well, may be my app uses https and I thought I had some certificate problem. So I exported the OWASP ZAP's certificate and pushed it on the android emulator. Of course, Android >= ICS versions have their cert names hashed using OpenSSL. So I followed some instructions here and I managed to get my ZAP's cert on my device. Still, I'm not able to intercept the traffic. My next line of thought was: May be this app is damaged. So I installed Facebook, Pocket and Guardian (news) apps from the app store into the emulator and tried intercepting their traffic. I can intercept the traffic from Guardian but Pocket and Facebook are unable to connect to internet (so is my app). However, I can browser the internet from my browser on the emulator. Honestly, I'm at my wits end. I don't understand why this is happening. I haven't done a lot of pen-tests before so, I guess I lack experience. Could anyone help this poor soul? (Of course, I can always use Wireshark, but it wouldn't be able to MiTM the requests and responsees the way ZAP or Burp does.) EDIT: After "Google-ing" like a madman, I finally found that Android doesn't have a support for global proxy (which works for, both browser AND apps). More info can be found here.
I've been studying about common injection related problems. Is it possible to embed some filtering mechanism to prevent injection client side? For example checking address bar URL for malicious added parameters, or checking user input forms on submission. I am not questioning whether this measure is 100% effective or needed or not. I want to know if this is technically possible and feasible.
This question could be renamed "Would forbidding SQL comments inside transactions prevent some SQL injections?", but I'd like to know if some DBMS allow this first. The goal is to reduce the attack surface of legacy applications. I understand that all user input should be sanitized before being used in an SQL statement. The thing is, sometimes you can't. Here is how I would like to run (No)SQL queries: BEGIN TRANSACTION WITH OPTIONS allow_comments=false; [non sanitized sql statement] COMMIT; Now say the sql contains '; DROP DATABASE; --. The -- part would raise an SQL exception because the option allow_comments is set to false. Because this statement was wrapped in a transaction, it would never commit and the DROP DATABASE; part would never be executed. We could also setup a trigger to alert us of the injection attempt. It should work with Hibernate ORM which does not send SQL comments by default. Maybe the trigger could also transform the initial statement with something that the application can handle (SELECT with no result, etc.), so the application could act as if the input had been sanitized. I realize it's not bulletproof as some SQL injections don't use comments. That's something we can mitigate once we receive the alert from the database (ban user, IP...). I'm afraid it's not something database developers would implement, because it would bring a false sense of security. I think if it helps to prevent even a small fraction of injections, that's something everybody could use. What do you think? DBMS: Oracle, MySQL, MS SQL, PostgreSQL... As database injections are also possible on NoSQL databases, I'm curious about these too. Use cases: legacy systems whose source code is untouchable or lost.
Is it possible to have a different passphrase for a GPG subkey? The reason is that I'm using duplicity to back up my files, and it needs the key passphrase to sign the files. Since I want run duplicity automatically, I would have to store the passphrase in an environment variable. I don't feel comfortable storing my main key's passphrase in an environment variable, so I'm wondering if I could have a different passphrase for the subkey that does the signing.
It is common advice to not open suspicious email in order to avoid being infected by malware contained in the email. What constitutes opening an email in Outlook? Specifically, is viewing an email in Outlook's Preview pane equivalent to opening an email? Can malware be activated by previewing email in Outlook's Preview pane? Or is the salient point that one should not open the attachments contained in the email?
I would like to keep a password matrix in an Evernote note. I would like to ask for feedback on the security of that storage.
I'm looking for a reliable solution to compare two strings without leaking their content through time differences. The length of the strings is not secret. The background is this: I'm implementing password-based authentication for a web application. The passwords are hashed with bcrypt and stored in a database. Rather than giving the application direct access to the hashes so that it check the password, I'd like to delegate this to the database system itself. The application only hashes the password and then passes the hash to a database procedure. This procedure has special privileges to access the stored hashes and compare them with the provided hash. The goal is to protect the hashes against SQL injection attacks. A similar idea is described in this presentation. Obviously, this scheme is only effective if the procedure does not leak any information about the stored hashes. So the string comparison must be timing-safe. I'm aware of the following method (pseudo-code): string_comp(str_1, str_2): if str_1.length != str_2.length: return false else: result := 0 for i := 0 to str_1.length - 1: result := result \| (str_1[i] ^ str_2[i]) return result == 0 However, this is rather cumbersome, and I'm not sure if it works as expected in high-level languages like SQL. Another common suggestion is to hash the strings and then compare the hashes. This would be much simpler than the code above. Which method is preferable? If I were to use the hash solution, which algorithm would I choose to not degrade the strength of bcrypt (not even theoretically)? SHA-256? SHA-384? SHA-512?
How do I have to use hydra on a web form? What I have done so far: I already successfully used hydra on a folder with an HTTP authentication: http://localhost/test/authtest/ with user admin and password 1234, I successfully found out the password with: hydra -l admin -x 1:5:1 -t 1 -f -vV 127.0.0.1 http-get /test/authtest/ But how would I have to try a run on a web form like http://127.0.0.1/test/login.php?&username=admin&password=1234
I was wondering how secure Touch ID/Keychain is really. My understanding is that iPhone 5S devices that use Touch ID allow you to enter a passcode if your fingerprint doesn't work, as a "fallback". Now, with iOS8, Touch ID is being offered to apps as a way for users to authenticate. But... it seems to me that this is far less secure than what many apps currently have. It effectively says that you can use the device passcode instead of an app password (which is stored in the keychain). Since most users only set up device pass codes with four digits, you only need to try up to 9999 numbers, and then you can get into not just the device, but apps such as banking as well (if they use the Touch ID API). Also, if the device is stolen and jailbroken, with only a four digit passcode, can a hacker get hold of the keychain items for all my apps? This seems like a big risk. Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be better if TouchID's "fallback" was a strong password, instead of a four digit code?
I have developed a REST/JSON API. The API exposes a lot of features. The API will be consumed by applications we design internally (mobile apps and web apps), by applications designed by our resellers and by applications designed by businesses. I am looking at securing the application by implementing authentication and authorization. I have 'googled' a lot but my research has left me with more questions than answers. Our internal application will be used by end users registered on the application. In essence, our application is just a client taking request from the end user, taking it to the REST API and retrieving the data for the end user. Our internal application should be able to perform all the operations exposed by the REST API. What is the best way to handle user login on our internal application? HTTP Basic over SSL or OAuth? Our reseller applications can create users like they own the users but ultimately the user details get stored in our database. The reseller application will just act as a client taking request from the user and fetching user data. Our resellers applications should only be restricted to some operations of the REST API. What security mechanism will I use to implement this kind of authorization and user login? I hope my question is clear. Thanks for the help.
(I'm not sure if this better belongs on unix.se or android.se, but since it's primarily security-related, I'm asking it here) I use my Android device to access servers for quick on-the-go administration. Before you ask, the device is encrypted with a fairly strong passphrase. I'm using the standard Terminal Emulator provided by CyanogenMod. This provides me a simple Bash shell prompt where I can then ssh into the servers I'd like. I'm running into a couple problems and security pitfalls: The application runs as user u0_a24, but the Dropbear SSH home is set to /data/.ssh. This means that unless I'm root, I can't access the files without making them publicly available: bad. If I just store my private key on my (albeit) encrypted sd card, other apps would probably be able to get access to it. I've made my private key fairly strong (lots of iterations of PBKDF2 in PKCS8), but still, I'm not interested in other apps getting access to it. What's the recommended way of handling this? Has anyone had any luck with doing this on Android?
Recently the CCS Injection was discovered in OpenSSL (CVE-2014-0224) http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-0224. It allows man-in-the-middle attackers to consequently hijack sessions or obtain sensitive information. Is it critical? Is it required to immediate upgrade OpenSSL? How it is risky related to OpenSSL Heartbleed (CVE-2014-0160)?
When I download PGP keys from keyservers like so: gpg --search-keys steve@openssl.org How are the public keys transferred down to my machine? Is there a possibility of a MITM attack to serve me the wrong key?
Is it a problem to have more than one account in an information system from security point of view? Let me clarify a bit. It is a bank system. I wonder if having a CSO (customer service officer) with more than one account associated with him/her (more than one login name and password for the same task) would result in some security breach. Can you see a breach specific to this scenario?
Recently my debit card information went to another hand, and he/she started to using it until my bank reports that there is an overdraft. I use Ubuntu 14.04 machine. I am sure I am not a victim of phishing, or email-scam. But I sometime use debit card for online purchases. Moreover, after going through my account history, I have noticed that these unauthorized transactions occurred just a couple of days after a taxi ride, where I had to pay with my debit card. And during the same time I just started to explore the Tor network. I do not have any firewall. what could be the reason? Any idea?
Preamble: Am in awe about the quality of both questions and answers on https / SSL on this site. My humble question below pales in comparison. Both on professional and amateur websites I've encountered the following phenomenon, when trying to contact - that is, write to - the website's owner: Rather than providing a straightforward contact@us.com email address, a form will be offered instead. Usually this form requires submitting at least two fields: your email address and your message. - Personally, I much prefer plain email, as this feels safer and more secure. If the form itself is both presented and submitted in https, I might be more willing to submit (true, non-fake) data. Now I've come across a careers portal used by a number of companies which confronts applicant with a form in .aspx and standard http (not https). The former already makes me uncomfortable, as I (wrongly?) perceive .aspx to be an old/outdated Microsoft language. The latter, however, is the ultimate trust-breaker for me (lack of https). This form asks applicants to submit personal details and to upload their CV as *.pdf. My assessment of the careers portal: no evil intent but not up to scratch regarding internet security and (protection of) data privacy. My question: Is the lack of https reason enough to abort form submission? Corollary: Would you consider private data submitted via said form to be effectively "public"? Only because someone (with evil intent) could have intercepted the unencrypted form submission, does this already mean that someone actually has?
I have an instance in Amazon EC2 and need to be HIPAA compliant. I have two questions, Should I need to do a block level encryption of the database storage. Should I need to encrypt sensitive data before storing in the database.
I understand that the shared users on a wifi can see each other's HTTP traffic using proper tools. Is it possible for shared users to read HTTPS traffic or encrypted traffic like TOR ?
I need to encrypt a partition, truecrypt could use keyfiles, (images and other) Is there any other encryption tool with GUI which can encrypt entire partitions and not only files/folders?
I have read some questions and answers about uploading images specifically: Have I done enough not be compromised through image uploading Risks of a PHP image upload form Uploading images safe of XSS, php code and virus Antivirus for scanning anonymous file uploads Use PHP to check uploaded image file for malware? So I understand the issue has been talked about many times. My situation is a bit different. I need to create a service like Google Drive or DropBox only that in this case it allows people to safely store sensitive data. The issue is that we are allowing anyone to subscribe and upload any kind of file much like in other web storage services. The only difference is that we need to protect the data from other users and protect ourselves from the data as well as possible. I am looking for the most secure best practices for allowing file uploads and storage. Is there some reliable resource that provides information about handling an online file services?
Lowercase-only passwords are convenient for phones since we dont hit shift or go to characters page(each which is as much effort as hitting a character in my Android devices). But how long would a lowercase-only password have to be to match a 10-character all-chars password?
Creating an X.509 certificate with a valid signature with OpenSSL is pretty well documented all over the Internet. There are instructions on creating certificates that are signed by themselves and certificates that are signed by a certificate authority (CA). But how does one create a certificate with an invalid signature?
I've been investigating to deploy a honeypot for research purpose, Honeyd seems like the most popular and adequate option to my needs, but it seems too old, the last version of this software was launched almost seven years ago (2007) and makes me think if it's still a good honeypot solution. I would like to know if there are other solutions as Honeyd was in his time, or it's still the best option?, what are the new tendencies in Honeypot? and what are the most common ways to deploy a research Honeypot?. I need to deploy a honeypot inside a network that is attacked, most common attacks are port scans, NETBIOS SMB-DS Session Setup, SNMP request, ICMP, etc. But there are more than 400 types of attack. I would also like to integrate this honeypot with a currently deployed snort, for optimum data collection, what could be the best choice? or can i integrate different honeypot solutions? Thanks ahead...
Thinking about software security metrics currently I've thought about the following software security metrics: number/type of CWE detected by developers (bug reporting) number/type of CWE detected by static analysis number/type of warning at compile time (i.e: from stack protector / fortify source ) number/type of (presumed) memory leaks (running software under valgrind or whatever) number/type of unsafe function calls (sprintf instead of sNprintf) Now the questions: What other security metrics on software do you suggest ? Is there a state-of-the art reference on this topic ? I was able to found only security metrics on IT but not on softwares (software development). The goals is to measure and have an overview on how bad/good are the softwares developed and measure where increase/decrease effort on secure software development practices or how/where security process needs some changes.
I know that in local PGP keyrings, there's an idea of trust: I trust this key ultimately, this key less than that, etc. Is this web-of-trust exportable? For example, if I trust someone@openssl.org and they trust someoneelse@openssl.org, can I import their web of trust?
Let's say someone rooted a site, is it possible for the attacker to do XSS via document.cookie? Instead of giving the user a name=value, the attacker does something like this name=<script>document.alert(1)</script> and it will store this in users browser as a cookie when he visits site it will execute. Is this possible or am I just way off? So is it possible to store some kind of VBScript/JavaScript exploit in users cookie? Or is that totally not possible? I know there are different ways attacker can approach if he rooted the site but I'm wondering specifically about cookies in users browsers and their capabilities storing code and attacking the client. Is this a possibility or a myth?
What does the pgp public key length depend on? Does a long private key result in a long public key? The longer public key the better; or is it even the private key the crucial factor?
I use VPN quite often in public places where I don't want anyone to read my web traffic. However, some public places have firewalls that block ports required to establish a VPN connection (I usually use PPTP). I don't think some public places (especially my school) really distinguish between a VPN connection and HTTP(S) connections. They just block some ports (I think my school is blocking every port except 80, yes even HTTPS!, but I'm not quite sure.). So I wonder if I can bypass the firewall (maybe by using another port). I can even change the protocol if necessary. I already use port 80, and 443 for apache and 20, 21, and 22 for FTP, SFTP and SSH on my VPN server. I can use as many domains as necessary but I only have one IP address. Can configure my server so that it uses port 80 for apache if the requests comes from a specific domain and uses port 80 for my VPN server if it comes from another domain. The Server is running on Mac OS X Mavericks (a UNIX system) using Mac Server 3.
I'm looking at encrypting a small (500bytes) file using the TPM. This is either doing assymetric encryption with the TPM directly, or using the TPM to store a symmetric key for decryption. This needs to work on Windows (7). I'm assuming I can do this with tbsip_Submit_Command through The TBS/WIn32_TBS, but haven't really seen any concrete info on how to prepare that sort of statement. Can someone point me in the right direction?
There is a corporate web mail site (PHP + MySQL) for limited numbers of users who are employees of a company working remotely with the corporate web portal. Each user has a login and password. I'm thinking about replacing usual text passwords with a key file, i.e. user choose any file to be the key at his first logon, it can be a text file or even a picture, the checksum of that file gets stored in the database and at next time such a user needs to loging he uploads his key file instead of typing a password. Would such authentication be more secure than a password typing? I guess it is much harder to figure out a key file than a password.
There are many situations where the validity of the timestamp attached to a certain post (submission of information) might be invaluable for the post owner's legal usage. I'm not looking for a service to achieve this, as requested in this great question, but rather a method for the achievement of such a service. For the legal (in most any law system) authentication of text content and its submission time, the owner of the content would need to prove: that the timestamp itself has not been altered and was accurate to begin with that the text content linked to the timestamp had not been altered I'd like to know how to achieve this via programming (not a language-specific solution, but rather the methodology behind the solution). Can a timestamp be validated to being accurate to the time that the content was really submitted? Can data be stored in a form that it can be read, but not written to, in a proven way? Is there another method of achieving this that I haven't specified? In other words, can I save & store a user's submission in a way that proves that the data has not been altered, and that the timestamp is accurate? I can't think of any programming method that would make this possible, but I am not the most experienced programmer out there. Based on MidnightLightning's answer to the question I cited, this sort of thing is being done. Clarification: I'm looking for a method (hashing, encryption, etc) that would allow an average guy like me to achieve the desired effect through programming. I'm interested in this subject for the purpose of Defensive Publication.
Is it illegal to publish an exploit against a known vulnerability in US? The exploit could be published in one's blog or places like exploit-DB. It seems that in countries like Germany and France such activities are not allowed.
SPOILER ALERT : Do not continue if you do not want to be spoiled I am currently doing the Google XSS Challenge Level 2 . I am injecting XSS code that is inserted into the document using element.innerHTML. I don't understand why <script>alert("Foobar")</script> does not work but <img src="/" onerror = "alert(1);" works. I have tried looking at source code but I still don't understand why. I am new to XSS, hence I would appreciate if you would make reference to the source code when formulating your answers.
I think I'm too close to the problem here and I just looking for a sanity check. My product blocks files from being stolen by restricting what programs can access what 'type' of the data. (e.g. Excel can read xls(x), Word can read doc(x), etc.). Basically a 'Content Based White List'. It seems that my ‘would be’ competitors (McAfee, TrendMicro, etc...) are crazy about signature scanning as being the 'Way'. To me, attempting to detect leakage by 'content' is flawed since it's so easy to encrypt data before putting it on the wire. That said, it's certainly easier to sell to the non-techie. So, to all you experts out there, what am I missing? If I prevent a sensitive file from being renamed, block Save As/Export and block 'Clipboard' operations, what am I missing? (Yeah, I know about the 'Send to' feature inside of Office and can deal with that) But I get the feeling that there is something OBVIOUS that I missing. What is it?
[1] The command prompt also sometimes opens itself and then stays open until I close it. I have run MalwareBytes and SuperAntiSpyware and they find nothing. This is my hijack this log file. I don't get any X's when I run the hijackthis analyzer on it. http://textuploader.com/kavk
When we use Tor or https traffic , the encryption- decryption key has to be exchanged between the browser and the website server. Why somebody who can capture entire traffic , say ISP or somebody who controls the wifi router, cannot capture the key and hence read the actual content of the encrypted traffic ?

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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