The following reply was made to PR config/1069; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Nathan Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: config/1069: Directory deny does not deny by ip
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 09:33:27 -0600 (MDT)

 
 On Fri, 29 Aug 1997, Nathan Haley wrote:
 
 > Marc Slemko wrote:
 > > 
 > > So my attempt (ie. one from outside the given IPs) gave the same error
 > > message?
 > Yes.
 >  
 > > You are sure you restarted Apache after putting in the changes?
 > Yes. 
 > 
 > > Please try with a fresh copy of the unpatched 1.2.x source from
 > > http://www.apache.org/
 > 
 > Okay. I won't be able to leave it running due to localized company
 > network policies...
 
 That's fine.
 
 > I wasn't even allowed to connect the other facilities to the internet
 > until the modifications to the proxy module were complete.
 > 
 > I compilied from the 1.2.4 source I downloaded yesterday from
 > ftp.apache.org, file was apache_1.2.4.tar.gz, I believe the directory
 > was /apache/releases/. FTP logs for the site should confim my download
 > yesterday morning from 209.69.34.130. I modified the Configuration file
 > slightly to enable some logging and to enable mod_proxy.
 > I also editted httpd.h to set our local conf to /etc instead
 > /usr/local/etc.
 > I then compiled with gcc-2.7.2.1-2 from RedHat. I then terminated the
 > running httpd process are started the new one with ./httpd from the src
 > directory.
 > 
 > So, it's running a basically stock configuration.. I then used the
 > invalid directory:
 > 
 > Error message in the logs for non-existent directory:
 > [Fri Aug 29 11:09:30 1997] access to /home/httpd/html/local/adlfkjad
 > failed for 209.69.34.141, reason: File does not exist
 
 Can you show me the output of a:
 
        ls -ld /home /home/httpd /home/httpd/html /home/httpd/html/local
 
 > 
 > I still have access to the site even though the access.conf is still
 > set:
 > <directory /home/httpd/html>
 > order deny,allow
 > deny from all
 > </directory>
 > 
 > > Redhat does some very stupid things in their package; nothing that should
 > > cause this, but...
 > but the Xwindows configuration utilities mean some much less involvement
 > in the intitial configuration and setup. (Not that everything works
 > right when it's done)
 >  
 

Reply via email to