spam – Postfix – how to deny ‘anyone’ from spamming local recipients

I managed to configure submission smtpd with auth and tls on port 587. Smtpd on port 25 can receive mails, but local recipients may be spammed by fake addresses (e.g xxx@xxx.xx can send a message to user@my.domain). This is only happens when it comes to local user which is in local reciepient map. How to prevent this? I tried smtpd_sender_restrictions, but this results in blocking any mails from outside.

Deny access to a path (give 403 or 404 response)

I know this should be easy. BBpress creates user profiles at /forums/users/.

I’d like to make them unavailable to anyone, and not be indexed by Google. I’ve tried the following (in .htaccess) and more, but nothing seems to work. Is it because these are not real directories, just a page hierarchy created by BBpress? What’s the solution?

# RedirectMatch 404 ^/fora/users/.*$

# RedirectMatch 404 ^.*/users/.*$

# this give internal server error throughout site:
# <Files ~ "/users/">
# Header set X-Robots-Tag "noindex, nofollow"
# </FilesMatch>

# RewriteEngine on
# RewriteRule ^.*/users/.*$ - (F)

Deny access to all the content of a section of website with Nginx from Plesk

I need to deny access to a part of website and allow some IP Addresses to access it for example my site is example.com it is accessible by every one but example.com/test and all its files are accessible only for 123.123.123.123, so I tried this code in PLESK.

Domains > example.com >Apache & nginx Settings. In the Additional nginx directives section I added this code and my IP address.

Code:

location ^~ /test {
allow 203.0.113.2;
deny all;
}

this worked for example.com/test but for example.com/test/file.php it did not work the files are accessible, and they are being downloaded instead of being executed, I Googled for solution but I did not find anything so what should I add to fix this and to deny access to all the content of /test
because I need to upload an angular project in this directory that I want to limit access to, so I need to deny access to different directories and different file formats.

nginx – how can I deny access to all the content of a section of website

I need to deny access to a part of website and allow some IP Addresses to access it for example my site is emample.com it is accessible by every one but emample.com/test and all its files are accessible only for 123.123.123.123 , so I tried this code in PLESK

Domains > example.com >Apache & nginx Settings. In the Additional nginx directives section I added this code and my ip address

Code:

location ^~ /test {
allow 203.0.113.2;
deny all;
}

this worked for emample.com/test but for emample.com/test/file.php it did not work the files are accessible, and they are being downloaded instead of being executed, I googled for solution but I did not find anything so what should I add to fix this and to deny access to all the content of /test
because I need to upload an angular project in this director that I want to limit access to, so I need to deny access to different directors and different file format

web part – Deny Access to hero webpart

We´re currently checking on some features of SharePoint and want to create a Intranetpage.

On the homepage there should be a hero webpart where are different pages linked like for example a overview of the different existing team sites (e.g. Human Resource, Controlling etc.)

Not every user is allowed to have access to each of this team site. My question is, is it possible to

a) deny the access for the different team sites for users which aren´t allowed to have access
b) only show for the user the things (webparts like the hero webpart or things in generell) where they have access to? So that a member of e.g. the Controlling department can only see the team site of Controlling?

I hope my question and everything was understandable
Thanks in advance

Best regards
David

amazon web services – s3 bucket/IAM user policy “Deny takes priority above all other access”?

Two policies, got one “Deny”, I should not be able to do any operations to bucket,
but I can still list and view bucket objects. Why? Thanks

S3 bucket policy

{
    "Sid": "S3DenyAccess",
    "Effect": "Deny",
    "Principal": "*",
    "Action": "*",
    "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::<YOURBUCKETHERE>/*"
}

IAM user policy

{
    "Version": "2012-10-17",
    "Statement": [
        {
            "Sid": "AllowConsoleAccess",
            "Action": [
                "s3:ListAllMyBuckets",
                "s3:GetBucketLocation"
            ],
            "Effect": "Allow",
            "Resource": [
                "arn:aws:s3:::*"
            ]
        }
    ]
}

linux – Why does my IPTables changes not deny access from all IP addresses except CloudFlare’s ranges?

I am running apache on ubuntu 18.04. I used IPtables to deny access from all IP addressed except CloudFlare’s ranges and when I run iptables -L –line-number I get

1 ACCEPT tcp – 131.0.72.0/22 anywhere multiport dports http,https
2 ACCEPT tcp – 172.64.0.0/13 anywhere multiport dports http,https
3 ACCEPT tcp – 104.16.0.0/12 anywhere multiport dports http,https
4 ACCEPT tcp – 162.158.0.0/15 anywhere multiport dports http,https
5 ACCEPT tcp – 198.41.128.0/17 anywhere multiport dports http,https
6 ACCEPT tcp – 197.234.240.0/22 anywhere multiport dports http,https
7 ACCEPT tcp – 188.114.96.0/20 anywhere multiport dports http,https
8 ACCEPT tcp – 190.93.240.0/20 anywhere multiport dports http,https
9 ACCEPT tcp – 108.162.192.0/18 anywhere multiport dports http,https
10 ACCEPT tcp – 141.101.64.0/18 anywhere multiport dports http,https
11 ACCEPT tcp – 103.31.4.0/22 anywhere multiport dports http,https
12 ACCEPT tcp – 103.22.200.0/22 anywhere multiport dports http,https
13 ACCEPT tcp – 103.21.244.0/22 anywhere multiport dports http,https
14 ACCEPT tcp – 173.245.48.0/20 anywhere multiport dports http,https
15 ufw-before-logging-input all – anywhere anywhere
16 ufw-before-input all – anywhere anywhere
17 ufw-after-input all – anywhere anywhere
18 ufw-after-logging-input all – anywhere anywhere
19 ufw-reject-input all – anywhere anywhere
20 ufw-track-input all – anywhere anywhere
21 DROP tcp – anywhere anywhere multiport dports http,https

The exact command I ran was:

sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 173.245.48.0/20 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 103.21.244.0/22 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 103.22.200.0/22 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 103.31.4.0/22 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 141.101.64.0/18 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 108.162.192.0/18 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 190.93.240.0/20 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 188.114.96.0/20 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 197.234.240.0/22 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 198.41.128.0/17 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 162.158.0.0/15 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 104.16.0.0/12 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 172.64.0.0/13 -j ACCEPT 
sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -s 131.0.72.0/22 -j ACCEPT 


sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports http,https -j DROP

Why am I still able to access the website from direct Digitalocean droplet IP address? Thanks

Why do liberals deny that Trump is just as much of a Christian as Jesus Christ himself?

because hes not? jesus spent his lifetime doing great works and gods miracle.

trump did nothing but eat at washington dc trough getting fat like hog.

then signed the most incrediblly stupid act which includes the worst destruction of public land and property in history.

jesus rode a donkey and was nice to it and fed it and petted it and told the donkey about god the whole time.

all animals cryed and moaned when jesus died amoungst a weeping earth.

jesus converted two of the coldest most evil deadliest men you could ever wish you never met the two roman guards that murdered him through complete bravery.

think of the cruelest then make it a thousand times crueler…that roman army. none can imagine them today…they are all christian today all preach the word of god.

donald trump ate like hog at washington dc trough and is the fattest washington fat cat now just like obama.

that was an incrediblly impossible lie you told, anon.

visas – What rights do airlines have to deny boarding due to immigration issues?

So I just stumbled across this account of a traveller which I can imagine to be pretty distressing
because I myself have had a rather close call not too long ago. I was travelling from Singapore travelling to Switzerland (to which I can travel visa-free) and a recent relaxation of regulation allows me to apply for a residency permit only after landing in Switzerland, instead of having to apply at the Swiss embassy in Singapore. Thus I travelled to the airport without any visa and the airline did not want to let me board because I did not have a swiss residency permit on hand (yet) or a return ticket. However I insisted that based on my own research I shouldn’t already need a residency permit to enter the country, but the airline was firm on their stance. I argued with the manager for a while and eventually they let me board after I provided enough evidence that I had sufficient reason to be living in Switzerland and as a result I almost missed my flight.

My question is, to what extent do airlines have the right to reject people from boarding due to immigration issues at the destination country? My logic is that even if I landed in Switzerland without a residency permit and don’t manage to acquire the necessary documents then, it should be the responsibility of the Swiss immigrations to kick me out of their country, and not the airline’s (which isn’t even swiss airlines)?

Anyway, it turned out in the end that I acquired my residence documents successfully in the country, so the airline would have done me a great disservice had they successfully barred me from boarding the plane.