metasploit2015

Te-am dat pm daca mai e valabil ...

Xss de doi bani.. On felicitari

Si la ce proiect te gandesti?

Ubuntu e mai mult pt uz personal(programare fb youtube)

Mai lasa in pula mea caps lock ala!

Felicitari si eu am cautat nitel timp acolo si n-am gasit nimic:( Ce vector ai folosit? In search acolo scoate doar <>

Ce cauta si alte stiri in acelas post:))?

Da, EU am tinut hc stealer vreo 6 luni Si nu e suspendat nici acum:D

Mzzhost.com

Uite asta merge da Sa nu incerci pe site asta Dute in start dupa in cmd scrie format c: Si Dai y la tot ce apare Si la final bagi ce melodie Si poza vrei Si siteul On: Pune mana si fa ceva serios lasa prostiile.

Baieti astia sunt chiar tari, va dati seama cat au scos astia?

Refud se mai face?

De cate av este detectat acum?

Nu ai o alta alternativa, mi s-a intamplat si unui prieten pt 900$ si a asteptat sa-l contacteze cei de la paypal ca sa poat trimite...

Daca Este fixat ne poti spune parametrul Si vectorul?

Luata de mine, multumesc

zPanel e cu plata, cred. Eu in trecut am folosit webmin

After weeks of mounting pressure from national governments for increased access to personal data following the Charlie Hebdo attack, the European Parliament has pulled a switch that aims to simultaneously increase citizens’ privacy rights while also giving law enforcement agencies more ability to track travellers. As they twist and turn like a twisty turny thing, MEPs are essentially leveraging national governments’ desire for a PNR (Passenger Name Record) tracking system to get the draft Data Protection Regulation legislation approved. In a resolution approved by 532 votes to 136, with 36 abstentions, lawmakers demanded that member states make faster progress on the new data protection laws “so that talks could proceed in parallel with those on an EU Passenger Name Record proposal”. In other words, give us what we want and we might relent on our opposition to PNR. MEPs said they would work “towards the finalisation of an EU PNR directive by the end of the year”. However, Jan Philipp Albrecht, the German MEP who has successfully steered the Data Protection Regulation this far, was against the move, believing that PNR should not be negotiated on any terms. He points to the ruling by the European Court of Justice last year which annulled the Data Retention Directive on the grounds that indiscriminate, blanket data retention is illegal. There are concerns from some MEPs that PNR, which the the Parliament has in the past rejected, is exactly the sort of blanket information gathering that the ECJ blocked. The PNR proposal would involved gathering all the information collected by airlines about passengers, including sensitive and personal information such as email addresses, credit card details, phone numbers, meal choices (halal, kosher, etc). Even Birgit Sippel, an MEP who voted in favour of the resolution, admitted that “the current draft EU PNR proposal needs to be revised to comply with the ECJ judgement on the Data Retention Directive". The Parliament also proposes other steps, such as investment in educational and social schemes that address the root causes of radicalisation, “disengagement and de-radicalisation” programmes and increased information sharing. “Member states should improve the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities and EU agencies. Only 50 per cent of information regarding terrorism and organised crime is currently given by member states to Europol and Eurojust,” highlights the Parliament statement. ® Sursa

A former programmer for banking firm Goldman Sachs who has been accused of stealing company secrets has filed suit against the FBI agents who arrested him for allegedly violating his constitutional rights. Sergey Aleynikov, 45, has been battling it out in the courts ever since his 2009 arrest on charges that he absconded with code from Goldman Sachs' proprietary high-speed trading software, in violation of the federal Economic Espionage Act (EEA). He was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to prison time and a fine, but an appeals court later overturned his conviction and ordered his immediate release, saying the EEA didn't apply to the crimes of which he was accused. By that point, Aleynikov had already served 11 months in prison. He wasn't out of the woods yet, though. In 2012, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance filed new charges against Aleynikov on behalf of the state of New York, accusing him of "unlawful use of scientific material" and "unlawfully duplicating computer-related material." Aleynikov is due to stand trial on those charges on April 1, but in the meantime he has taken the offensive. Reuters reports that he has sued FBI agents Michael McSwain and Eugene Casey and some other, unnamed agents, on grounds that his arrest and prosecution were both prejudicial and illegal. According to the complaint filed in the US District Court of Newark, New Jersey, which was obtained by Bloomberg: The unconstitutional malicious prosecution of Aleynikov was designed not to serve the interests of justice but to curry favor with an influential corporation intent on punishing one of its most talented officers who chose to leave the firm and, in the process, sending a message to other employees and prospective employees that Goldman Sachs is willing and able to use the American criminal justice system as its own private enforcement arm. The suit alleges that not only were Aleynikov's arrest and the subsequent search of his home unlawful because the agents didn't get warrants, but that the FBI violated Aleynikov's civil rights again when they forwarded evidence to the Manhattan DA's office. In December, the judge in Aleynikov's original trial ruled that the property seized during the search of his home – including computers and thumb drives – should have been returned after his conviction was reversed. Instead, it became the basis of the New York State charges. Aleynikov's suit against the FBI agents comes just days after he also sued Goldman Sachs in an effort to have the firm advance him his legal fees to defend against a civil suit it filed against him over his alleged code theft. Reuters reports that Aleynikov has already incurred more than $3m in court costs related to the civil suit, and he has asked that the case be put on hold pending his upcoming criminal trial. ® Sursa

You and me, simultaneously swapping stories of hackers President Barack Obama has signed an executive order that will attempt to protect America's crucial computer networks by sharing knowhow between g-men and techies. The new order instructs federal agencies to set up a clearing house of real-time, up-to-the-minute information on what's menacing US infrastructure. Companies running those networks and systems will be able to look into the intelligence stream, get an idea of what's about to hit them, and beef up their defenses accordingly. This is assuming the system works as described. This sharing of information is supposed to go two ways: businesses can use the clearing house to tip off the Feds about threats that everyone ought to know about, we're told. What exactly counts as security-related information that must be shared, and what private data must not be exchanged, is not clear at this stage. The order also calls for a full assessment of America's weak points in its computer security – and how they can be corrected. "This has to be a shared mission. So much of our computer networks and critical infrastructure are in the private sector, which means government can't do this alone," Prez Barry said in a speech at Stanford University today, moments before signing off the order. "But the fact is that the private sector can't do it alone either, because it's government that often has the latest information on new threats. There's only one way to protect America from these cyber threats and that is through government and industry working together, sharing appropriate information, as true partners." Rights-warriors at the EFF are not impressed by politicians' efforts to push through security information sharing – for one thing, there already are ways for companies to swap stories. There was no mention of the NSA at all in his entire 30-minute speech; instead, Obama said privacy needed to be protected. His order calls on the chief privacy officer of the US Department of Homeland Security to look into this troublesome thing (privacy, not the NSA) and report back in a year, so that's all right then. Basically, the executive order looks very like the CISPA information sharing legislation that is having such a problem getting through Congress at the moment. There are limits to what can be accomplished with an executive order, however. CISPA would limit the liability companies face from customers who aren't happy about having their data given to the government as part of this intelligence sharing. The executive order does not shield businesses in this way. "We need Congress to send a bill to the president that gives businesses legal certainty that they have a safe harbor against frivolous lawsuits when voluntarily sharing and receiving threat indicators and countermeasures in real time and taking actions to mitigate cyber-attacks," said the American Banking Association in a statement after Obama's speech. An 'almost unique' President Executive order aside, with his Marine One helicopter parked outside, Obama's Stanford speech was a mix of bland reassurances and hyperbole. He said that the US was positioned to lead the world into the 21st century (something which must have caused amusement in Beijing) and that America was "almost unique" in being able to innovate online. He also took time for some gags (jokes, not NSL banning orders) saying he had been told that the Stanford students would "talk geeky" to him and suggesting that he should wear a pair of thick-rimmed glasses mended with tape in order to fit in. But it wasn't this that has some section of the tech community being standoffish. Although they were invited, neither Google, Facebook, nor Yahoo! attended Friday's get-together. After having been burned so badly by the NSA snooping around their data centers, none of the firms is quite ready to play nice with executive orders. They want balanced legislation on the books, instead. Apple's Tim Cook was present, however, and gave a 15-minute Apple advert immediately preceding the president. Most of it was a rehash of the self-promotion and Google-bashing the Goldman Sachs technology conference heard on Tuesday, but he did stray off script with a trenchant warning. "We live in a world where all people are not treated equally, too many don't feel free to practice their religion, express their own opinions, or love who they choose," he said. "Information can make the difference between life and death. If those of use fail to do everything in our power to protect privacy then we risk something more valuable than money – we risk our way of life. Luckily, technology gives us the tools to avoid these risks." Technology like the power-off button on your iPhone, right Tim? ® sURSA

Google has adjusted the terms of its controversial Project Zero vulnerability scouting effort, loosening its 90-day disclosure policy somewhat to give companies a better chance of fixing their security bugs before they become public knowledge. Among the changes, Google says it will no longer disclose bugs on weekends and public holidays, and it will even offer software vendors a brief grace period to finish their patches, if they request one. Project Zero has drawn fire from software companies – most notably Microsoft – for disclosing critical vulnerabilities to the public exactly 90 days after it reports them to vendors, a policy that top Redmond security bod Chris Betz said "feels less like principles and more like a 'gotcha'." "What's right for Google is not always right for customers," Betz wrote in a blog post in January. "We urge Google to make protection of customers our collective primary goal." Mind you, it's only natural that Microsoft would be miffed. Among the bugs revealed by Project Zero so far are critical zero-day flaws in Windows that can potentially allow an attacker to gain full control of affected systems. Google's vulnerability disclosures often include proof-of-concept exploit code, meaning cyber-crooks have access to working exploits the minute Google's disclosure goes live. Still, Google seems to have heard Redmond's complaints. On Friday, the online ad-slinger said it would make changes to how Project Zero discloses flaws, but it stopped short of saying it would lengthen the 90-day deadline, noting that CERT's own deadline is even shorter. "We notify vendors of vulnerabilities immediately, with details shared in public with the defensive community after 90 days, or sooner if the vendor releases a fix," Google's security team wrote in a blog post. "We've chosen a middle-of-the-road deadline timeline and feel it's reasonably calibrated for the current state of the industry." Going forward, however, 90 days won't necessarily mean 90 days. For one thing, if the date of a patch disclosure deadline falls on a weekend or a public holiday, Google now says it will hold off on its disclosure until the next working day. What's more, the Chocolate Factory says it will extend the disclosure deadline by a grace period of up to 14 days, provided a vendor lets it know that a patch will be released on a specific date within the 14 days. "Public disclosure of an unpatched issue now only occurs if a deadline will be significantly missed," Google's post states. Google says it will also be sure to pre-assign CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposure) numbers to bugs that go past their deadlines before it discloses them, to avoid confusion and help the public understand specific threats. But Redmond wasn't entirely satisfied with the changes, saying it would much rather see Google work more interactively with software vendors to apply patches. "When finders release proof-of-concept exploit code, or other information publically before a solution is in place, the risk of attacks against customers goes up," Microsoft's Betz told The Register in an emailed statement. "While it is positive to see aspects of disclosure practices adjust, we disagree with arbitrary deadlines because each security issue is unique and end-to-end update development and testing time varies." Google, meanwhile, said that an arbitrary deadline, albeit a nondiscriminatory one, is the best vendors can hope for. "As always, we reserve the right to bring deadlines forwards or backwards based on extreme circumstances," Google's security team said. "We remain committed to treating all vendors strictly equally." ® Sursa

If he can handle MS user 'relations', he can do anything Sam Ramji has been named chief executive of Cloud Foundry Foundation, to shepherd the open-source platform cloud effort. Ramji shot to prominence as the architect of Microsoft’s open-source strategy in the 2000s, having been handed Redmond’s radioactive "relations with the community" by his bosses. Ramji's efforts went a long way to healing Microsoft’s self-inflicted wounds. Ramji’s goal now is to continue the rapid growth in contributions and downloads of Cloud Foundry – 1,700 pull requests are claimed for the last year. Cloud Foundry is a platform-as-a-service build using Ruby and Go under an Apache licence used in IBM Bluemix, HP’s Helion and Pivotal Cloud Foundry. Ramji said in a statement on his appointment: “Major corporations on the supply and demand sides of the cloud market are putting significant resources behind this community built platform. They're doing so because they know they can commit to Cloud Foundry as their long-term cloud platform with confidence.” A 20-year industry veteran, Ramji will captain project and community, bringing together interests of more than 39 of the industry’s biggest players. Cloud Foundry Foundation’s members span EMC, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel SAP and Canonical. Nine members of a Cloud Foundry board were also announced, including representatives of EMC, HP, IBM and others. Built by VMware, Cloud Foundry was released as open source in 2011 before being spun out from VMware/EMC in 2013. After Microsoft, Ramji led strategy for API management specialist Apigee; he also ran product strategy for Java webserver maker BEA WebLogic on its Integration product. ® SOurce

Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers can now shift their licenses from on-premise gear up into Google's cloud as well as Amazon's. The new licensing option was announced by Google and Red Hat on Monday alongside the general availability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux on Google's Amazon-killing "Cloud Platform". RHEL had been available in a "preview" mode since Compute Engine went into general availability in December 2013. With the news, RHEL will be available to customers in both an on-demand consumption model and via a "Red Hat Cloud Access" option which lets companies "migrate their current [RHEL] subscriptions for use on Google Cloud Platform." To give punters this option, Google has joined the "Red Hat Certified Cloud Provider Program", which means the company has met the "testing and certification requirements to demonstrate that they can deliver a safe, scalable, supported and consistent environment for enterprise cloud deployments," Red Hat wrote in a release. The RHEL software served up on Google's cloud platform differs from typical installations, Google explains, by incorporating Google's Compute Engine tools gcutil, gsutil, and gcimagebundle, enabling SELinux by default, allowing inbound SSH access through the RHEL firewall, augmenting rsyslog, and other tweaks. RHEL cloud servers cost extra. Google charges $0.06 per hour for the RHEL software on servers of less than eight virtual cores and $0.13 per hour on servers with more, along with the base server fee. Until today it was only possible for punters to shift their on-premise licenses up into cloud king Amazon Web Services. The new choice of suppliers is likely to be welcomed, especially since Amazon and Google are locked in a price war with each other. ® Source

Verifica ip-urile sa vezi daca e aceeasi locatie, cum pana mea sa fiu ala?

Esti prost?Nu sunt aerosol