[IM-Talk] HTTPS probe

2009-09-01 Thread Andrey Gordon
I'm trying to setup a what I thought was a trivial HTTPS probe. Plug in device address, host name and a url. Added username and password, but it returns as unauthorized, even though I can login with my browser with those credentials. The only thing I can think of is that that host has an

Re: [IM-Talk] HTTPS probe

2009-09-01 Thread Andrey Gordon
I just setup a probe to poke a different host where the cert is valid and is signed by a trusted authority and get the same result. IM server is a debia box. The target host is a windows box running IIS with Integrated Windows Auth enabled (no basic). I'm trying to connect to the page from

Re: [IM-Talk] HTTPS probe

2009-09-01 Thread Andrey Gordon
Yeah, that's what I just discovered as well. Enabling basic auth on those IIS servers did the trick and since it's an SSL connection, it was not a concern for me. However, is it possible to control acceptance of bad/expired certs with intermapper? It seems like it accepts any cert by

Re: [IM-Talk] HTTPS probe

2009-09-01 Thread Janice Losgar
On 9/1/2009 1:30 PM, Andrey Gordon wrote: However, is it possible to control acceptance of bad/expired certs with intermapper? It seems like it accepts any cert by default, so it's impossible to have the probe alert on when the cert expires. Is that correct? If so, that would be a nice feature

[IM-Talk] False positives protection

2009-09-01 Thread Andrey Gordon
You can probably tell I got back to tweaking IM again. Anyway, I was curious if there is a mechanism that is built in into IM server to double check the failures. For example, if a probe detects a condition that normally triggers an alert (let's say Alarm). Does InterMapper double

Re: [IM-Talk] False positives protection

2009-09-01 Thread Janice Losgar
On 9/1/2009 3:16 PM, Andrey Gordon wrote: Consider this a feature request, but I'd still want to understand what the logic of this behavior is today as implemented. I'm suspecting many on this list would be interested to hear how IM behaves on condition detection Andrey, If a probe detects

Re: [IM-Talk] False positives protection

2009-09-01 Thread Bob Merrill
Hi Andrey, I don't know if these answer your question specifically, but I found them in the User Guide. Packet-based Test Procedure Whenever InterMapper tests a packet-based device, it uses the following procedure: 1.. InterMapper sends the appropriate probe packet (ping, SNMP

Re: [IM-Talk] False positives protection

2009-09-01 Thread Richard E. Brown
Hi Andrey, --- You wrote: But if in fact it stays like that for 3-4 runs of the probe I'd like to know even at 3am. Note that 3-4 runs of the probe does not equal 2 min (30 sec poll). If my page is out for 2 min I'm in a bigger trouble, much bigger then if it throws a 500 error for a

Re: [IM-Talk] False positives protection

2009-09-01 Thread Richard E. Brown
Andrey, OK. I see that my discussion of delayed notificaions didn't quite address your question - you're more interested in the polling algorithm. Bob Merrill's quote from the User Guide gives the details, but maybe not quite in the terms that you're asking... In fact, I believe that the

Re: [IM-Talk] False positives protection

2009-09-01 Thread Andrey Gordon
Aha, that is what I was looking for. Basically, that is what I wanted to hear: it always retries many times at a short interval (shorter than the poll interval) before reporting an outage. So with that said, maybe we can have the delay feature to allow wait time less then 1 minute? I think