1) Folks who rely on other security measures - IPsec being
the most obvious
IPSEC is good.
5) 128 bit WEP on as deterent. is it worth the effort - low security
requirements. somewhat 404 (see 3), but not too bad if you
know what you are
doing.
I say layer your security. Enjoy
for Enterasys. The later is
probably more what you're looking for.
-t
-Original Message-
From: paul van den bergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: wireless security question.
There has been much debate recently in my
paul van den bergen wrote:
6) 128 WEP + regular key update. with or without IPsec.
My questions relates to scenario 1 and 6, to me the interesting ones.
In the case of 1) how would one stop external users using the APs as private
network bridges?
In the case of 6) how does one distribute
(not terminating into an external VPN)
Hope it can help:)
Luigi Grandini
IT Security Evangelist
www.sinergy.it
- Original Message -
From: paul van den bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 7:44 AM
Subject: wireless security question.
There has been
: wireless security question.
1) Folks who rely on other security measures - IPsec being
the most obvious
IPSEC is good.
5) 128 bit WEP on as deterent. is it worth the effort - low security
requirements. somewhat 404 (see 3), but not too bad if you
know what you are
doing.
I
similar to a previously used password..
-Original Message-
From: paul van den bergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: wireless security question.
There has been much debate recently in my circle about wireless security
There has been much debate recently in my circle about wireless security, WEP,
etc. and especially related to the supposed vulnerability of APs to traffic -
eg. reports that a large % (40%???) do not have WEP enabled. (my arguement is
that these are likey the smart ones who realise that WEP
I was looking at an Apache module design to (among other things) prevent
people from grabbing '/etc/passwd'. The module is called mod_security, and
can be found here: http://www.webkreator.com/mod_security/
After looking at an example configuration file:
How easy would it be in your script to do something like userid=root?
Think about the possibility of someone injection code.
Are you passing this information somewhere in the URL or in one of the
hidden variables?
IMHO messing with /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow from the web is a no-no.
Diego.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 05:33:41AM +, Ing. Bernardo Lopez wrote:
How secure could be my webserver if i allow some php scripts to modify
the file (directly) /etc/passwd /etc/shadow but my script will only
allow to modify the line of the loged user (like userid=visitor, then he
only can
How secure could be my webserver if i allow some php scripts to modify
the file (directly) /etc/passwd /etc/shadow but my script will only
allow to modify the line of the loged user (like userid=visitor, then he
only can see/modify visitor's line)??
It is secure, if i enforce very enougth the
) priv des56 (password) access (access-list)
-Original Message-
From: Chris Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Telnet Security Question for a Router.
From: Tony Toni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We were currently wrote up
]
Subject: Re: Telnet Security Question for a Router.
Most of the Cisco routers suport SSH, especially if you are running an IOS
image that supports IPSec.What we did until all of our routers supported
SSH, was set up a secure SSH server in our internal network (trusted part of
the network
are really busy I have seen some
cases where ssh will hinder trouble shooting.
Hope this helps.
-Original Message-
From: Charley Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Telnet Security Question for a Router
From: Tony Toni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We were currently wrote up by our external auditors because we use telnet
to access all of our routers. In some cases we use a filtered Telnet
service...but that is not the normal practice. We are a fairly good size
company with about 1000+ routers.
I am
Most of the Cisco routers suport SSH, especially if you are running an IOS image that
supports IPSec.What we did until all of our routers supported SSH, was set up a secure
SSH server in our internal network (trusted part of the network). Then, for access
from the Internet, we SSH to the server
The Network Services Group is adamant that neither SSH or
CISCO TACACS+ will work on a router to correct the security
issue.
*blink blink*
As a relative newbie/ignorant, I am distressed to hear that
ssh doesn't correct the security issues with regard to
clear-text username/password travel.
PROTECTED]
12/10/2002 07:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Telnet Security Question for a Router.
We were currently wrote up by our external auditors because we use telnet
to
access all of our routers. In some cases we use a filtered Telnet
service
We were currently wrote up by our external auditors because we use telnet to
access all of our routers. In some cases we use a filtered Telnet
service...but that is not the normal practice. We are a fairly good size
company with about 1000+ routers.
I am charged with coordinating a response
From: Tony Toni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 21:45
We were currently wrote up by our external auditors because we use telnet
to
access all of our routers. In some cases we use a filtered Telnet
service...but that is not the normal practice. We are a fairly good size
I may not completely understand the last part of your message. You say:
The Network
Services Group is adamant that neither SSH or CISCO TACACS+ will work on a
router to correct the security issue.
If they mean ssh is not available on Cisco routers, this is incorrect.
so.
You best be is if you don't need it close it.
The Crocodile
www.ghettohackers.net
www.pasture.com/~tcroc
-Original Message-
From: Mike Cain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FTP security question...
I just came
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 07:02:23AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Mike Cain wrote:
hi,
Anon root is fine with a locked down root. But you should take care to check if
there are any exploits on ur ftp server (wu-ftp ???). Check up if there are any
I just came to work at a new company, and I have been doing the standard
auditing and such to see where the company stands from a security point
of view. Nothing looks as if its been compromised in the past, which
should keep me from having to rebuild anything, but one thing I noticed
on my SSS
An example is WOL technology. The computer is turned off, but can be
started by a command through the network.
This brings up a thought. If you have a home computer connected directly
to a broadband modem/router, you do not want to have WOL enabled.
not so true, you must send so-called
the window size. Any thoughts?
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Enquiries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: security question
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Enquiries wrote:
Dear All
I have been
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:04:36 -0700 (PDT), Jeremy Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
JA ..., my experience has been that clever uberhackers who can pry a
JA PC wide open in the 30 second window between the network being
JA started and the firewall coming up completely are EXTREMELY rare.
Is it
to that trouble.
-Original Message-
From: Gorgon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 July 2002 03:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: security question
Wow. Good question. I imagine that the actual time is much shorter,
though. The real time would be the time between when
a lame idea
since you are booting your pc
take the cable out before booting
and put it back again when your firewall is up and
running
better install *nix ;)
cheers
rohit
--- Gorgon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. Good question. I imagine that the actual time
is much shorter,
though.
Goh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:06 AM
To: Jeremy Anderson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: security question
I totally agree with Jeremy. If file and print sharing is turned off and
there are no other services such as an FTP or IIS Server running on the box
-Original Message-
From: Cheryl Goh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:06 PM
To: Jeremy Anderson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: security question
I totally agree with Jeremy. If file and print sharing is turned off and
there are no other services such as an FTP
It could also depend on the order which your services start.
I've experienced where we had to write a manual start process for multiple
instances of Oracle because more than two would go over the default (30
second?) timeout for a service.
I'm not sure if the start order is determined by the
Quoting Cheryl Goh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It is only when the user chats on IRC or surfs the web that vulnerabilities
are introduced. By then your personal firewall would have loaded anyway.
... and effectlively opens a back channel into the machine. You are
right - controlling services and
Quoting Teodorski, Chris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why is IRC considered such a security risk? I have heard people
discussing IRC like it was made by the devil himself. Can anyone
provide me with some insight into this. For the sake of discussion,
let's assume that DCC is NOT set to Auto
PROTECTED]; Jeremy Anderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: security question
I am kind of confused.
You connect to the internet after your OS has booted up. So when every
security item is in place, only then you logon to internet
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Enquiries wrote:
Dear All
I have been wondering for quite some time since I got broadband a few weeks
ago whether the followign is a security risk: the time between opening up
the pc and the anti-virus and firewall to boot up takes about 2 minutes in
total... Is there
Wow. Good question. I imagine that the actual time is much shorter,
though. The real time would be the time between when the Network Services
start (meaning the listening programs are started) and the firewall is
executed. I would bet that, on a faster machine, it is less than 5 seconds.
37 matches
Mail list logo
