Overly broad permissions can turn one compromised account into a much larger security problem. Learn how to reduce unnecessary access, review privileges, and apply least privilege across modern Linux systems. Review Linux Privileges×

Alerts This Week
Warning Icon 1 525
Alerts This Week
Warning Icon 1 525

Stay Ahead With Linux Security News

Filter%20icon Refine news
X Clear Filters
X Clear Filters
View More

Get the latest News and Insights

Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.

Community Poll

Should Linux servers automatically install security updates?

No answer selected. Please try again.
Please select either existing option or enter your own, however not both.
Please select minimum {0} answer(s).
Please select maximum {0} answer(s).
/main-polls/157-should-linux-servers-automatically-install-security-updates?task=poll.vote&format=json
157
radio
0
[{"id":506,"title":"Yes \u2014 critical security patches should install automatically.","votes":0,"type":"x","order":1,"pct":0,"resources":[]},{"id":507,"title":"No \u2014 every update should be tested before deployment.","votes":0,"type":"x","order":2,"pct":0,"resources":[]},{"id":508,"title":"Only critical vulnerabilities should auto-install.","votes":0,"type":"x","order":3,"pct":0,"resources":[]},{"id":509,"title":"I patch when Reddit starts panicking.","votes":1,"type":"x","order":4,"pct":100,"resources":[]}] ["#ff5b00","#4ac0f2","#b80028","#eef66c","#60bb22","#b96a9a","#62c2cc"] ["rgba(255,91,0,0.7)","rgba(74,192,242,0.7)","rgba(184,0,40,0.7)","rgba(238,246,108,0.7)","rgba(96,187,34,0.7)","rgba(185,106,154,0.7)","rgba(98,194,204,0.7)"] 350
bottom 200
Loading...

Explore Latest Linux Security news

We found -4 articles for you...
77

Windows NT: SMB Flaw Exposes 680,000 Websites to Security Threats

Hundreds of thousands of Web sites running Windows NT 4 remain -- and will remain -- at risk from attack via a vulnerability patched for other operating systems a month ago, a U.S.-based security firm and a British-based Web monitoring vendor said Thursday. The bug in a key Windows protocol, Server Message Block (SMB), was patched for Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows 2000 in February, but because NT 4 had reached the end of its support lifecycle December 31, 2004, no public fix was issued by Microsoft. Microsoft does provide security patches for NT 4.0 customers who pay for custom support, a service available through the end of 2006. . However, that leaves a large number of Web sites vulnerable to hacks based on the SMB vulnerability, said Netcraft, a U.K.-based Web metrics and monitoring firm. According to Netcraft's most recent Web server survey, about 1.1 percent of Web-facing hostnames, or approximately 680,000, run on Windows NT 4. Thousands of those hostnames, said Netcraft, are on SSL-enabled sites which may be conducting e-commerce, and thus particularly attractive to hackers. "If your organization is unlucky enough to still have Windows NT 4.0 systems (most do) and you're not able to pay for extended support then you do not have a whole lot of options," wrote Marc Maiffret, the chief hacking officer at eEye Digital Security, in a message to the Bugtraq security mailing list. Maiffret suggested a workaround that might mitigate some potential attacks. "...enable SMB signing. This does not truly mitigate the attack but instead it creates change in the SMB protocol that most attack tools I have seen do not support. Therefore it breaks them from being able to successfully exploit remote systems." The link for this article located at securitypipeline.com is no longer available. . Even with updates for various platforms, numerous Windows NT installations continue to be at risk owing to a crucial SMB weakness. Discover more.. Windows NT Risk, SMB Exploit, E-CommerceVulnerability. . LinuxSecurity.com Team

Calendar%202 Mar 14, 2005 User Avatar LinuxSecurity.com Team Server Security
News Add Esm H340

Get the latest News and Insights

Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.

Community Poll

Should Linux servers automatically install security updates?

No answer selected. Please try again.
Please select either existing option or enter your own, however not both.
Please select minimum {0} answer(s).
Please select maximum {0} answer(s).
/main-polls/157-should-linux-servers-automatically-install-security-updates?task=poll.vote&format=json
157
radio
0
[{"id":506,"title":"Yes \u2014 critical security patches should install automatically.","votes":0,"type":"x","order":1,"pct":0,"resources":[]},{"id":507,"title":"No \u2014 every update should be tested before deployment.","votes":0,"type":"x","order":2,"pct":0,"resources":[]},{"id":508,"title":"Only critical vulnerabilities should auto-install.","votes":0,"type":"x","order":3,"pct":0,"resources":[]},{"id":509,"title":"I patch when Reddit starts panicking.","votes":1,"type":"x","order":4,"pct":100,"resources":[]}] ["#ff5b00","#4ac0f2","#b80028","#eef66c","#60bb22","#b96a9a","#62c2cc"] ["rgba(255,91,0,0.7)","rgba(74,192,242,0.7)","rgba(184,0,40,0.7)","rgba(238,246,108,0.7)","rgba(96,187,34,0.7)","rgba(185,106,154,0.7)","rgba(98,194,204,0.7)"] 350
bottom 200