loading

Access Control System with an 4x3 Keypad & RFID-RC522

Your code written more complex, than it has to be, and you have much repeated code, that makes it harder to understand and change the code. So I will first describe, how to shorten and generalize your code. That will make it easier to implement new features, like invalidating a card after 3 wrong PIN entries.

Access Control System with an 4x3 Keypad & RFID-RC522 1

1. How to set up AWS Network Access Control List for SSH to private subnet

The first thing is to define what some of the terms mean.NACLS - Network Access Control Lists, are a state-less packet filter applied at the subnet level. The 'state-less' aspect is important to keep in mind, this means you need to be explicit for all traffic entering and leaving the subnet. For example with a 'state-full' rule approach (which is what the Security Group in AWS applies), you can simply specify the inbound traffic of TCP/22 for SSH and it will automatically allow the outbound traffic. With NACLS this is not the case, you will need to specify a rule in each direction to allow the traffic to pass.Security Groups - these are groups of state-full rules that can be applied to one or more instances in a VPC. Note they apply at the instance level. The Security Group can be compared to a traditional state-full firewall, but because it applied at the individual instance level, you can segregate instances from each other even within the same subnet which is nice. And because they are state-full, if you want to allow traffic into a server (for example TCP/22 for SSH), you do not have to worry about creating a corresponding outbound rule, the platform takes care of that automatically, so they are much easier to manage - which also means less chance of errors.There is a nice table which compares these two: VPC Security ComparisonThere is also a nice diagram on that page which shows the order of things being applied for traffic depending on the direction of flow . ..so check that out. Then in terms of subnets we have:Public subnet - in AWS terms, this is simply a subnet which has a route table attached that has a 0.0.0.0/0 route via an attached Internet GatewayPrivate subnet - this is the opposite, i.e. it does not have a 0.0.0.0/0 route via an attached Internet Gateway. Note that it can still have a 0. 0. 0. 0/0 route via a NAT Gateway or similar proxy in your environment, just not direct.The question is, when you have NACLS and Security Groups - which do you use. AWS describe NACLs as an "optional layer of security for your VPC". And it is true that in general Security Groups are sufficient, they are more flexible and provide the same protection. In my experience there are some typical cases where I see NACLS used however:AWS also provide some guidance on a number of configuration scenarios available here: Recommended Network ACL Rules for Your VPCMy guidance though is typically Security Groups provide suitable protection, are easier to understand and configure and are more flexible and granular in their application. NACLs do provide you that extra backstop for human error or more advanced configurations, but for basic use they are not typically used. Hence I assume why AWS refer to them as "optional".I would leave NACLs in their default configuration (allow all traffic in and out) and instead focus on Security Groups for now, as using NACLs as a second layer will only add an extra layer of complexity which is perhaps not needed in your scenario. From a learning perspective, it is good to know they are there, they are state-less, they apply at the subnet level and they apply after the routing decision and before security groups on traffic entering a subnet. In regards to your specific situation, because you are using NACLs you need to remember then that they are state-less. Therefore all traffic flows in and out of the subnet need to be accounted for - the main reason why Security Groups are so much easier. So in your case you have:You need to add a rule like rule #300 (but note you have formatted the source IP slightly wrong - see below) on your outbound public subnet ACL, but in bound, with a source of the private subnet. Then assuming your Security Groups are well configured then you should be good to go.Hope that helps.To add - as per the other answer - rule #300 on the outbound rule set of the public subnet is miss-formatted. It should be 0.0.0.0/0 and not 0.0.0.0/32, however in your case you were not hitting that as rule #50 is hit first and is allowing all traffic anyway - so while it would not work, it was not actually causing your problem.

2. Best kiosk/access control software? [closed]

You probably do not want to totally block them from other aspects of the computer, and limit them to a browser. It sounds like you need a program that can restore any changes made to the system very easily.For this purpose, I would highly recommend Faronics DeepFreeze. DeepFreeze can monitor any changes made to the computer, and revert them all with a simple reboot. There is also a free solution from Microsoft called SteadyState which works on XP and Vista

Access Control System with an 4x3 Keypad & RFID-RC522 2

3. Setting Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * when session identifiers are injected in the HTTP headers

Yeah, that is correct. To be able to get anything of value out of it, the attacker needs to get the credentials. If these are stored in local storage, in JS variables or whatever they will be protected by the same origin policy that the browser enforces.So there is no major problem with your CORS policy in of itself. But there are many related issues that you need to think about: Is the authentication scheme good? I assume third parties are supposed to use the API since you want to enable cross origin requests, so how do the third parties get the secrets? And so on

GET IN TOUCH WITH Us
recommended articles
Cases
no data
Shenzhen Tiger Wong Technology Co., Ltd is the leading access control solution provider for vehicle intelligent parking system, license plate recognition system, pedestrian access control turnstile, face recognition terminals and LPR parking solutions.
no data
CONTACT US

Shenzhen TigerWong Technology Co.,Ltd

Tel: +86 13717037584

E-Mail: info@sztigerwong.com

Add: 1st Floor, Building A2, Silicon Valley Power Digital Industrial Park, No. 22 Dafu Road, Guanlan Street, Longhua District,

Shenzhen,GuangDong Province,China  

                    

Copyright © 2024 Shenzhen TigerWong Technology Co.,Ltd  | Sitemap
Contact us
skype
whatsapp
messenger
contact customer service
Contact us
skype
whatsapp
messenger
cancel
Customer service
detect