Re: [users@httpd] HSTS verification

On 03 Jul 2021, at 03:20, apache-httpd-us...@thomas.freit.ag wrote: > On 02.07.21 09:27, @lbutlr wrote: >> When checking for https HSTS compliance on htstpreload.org I get a warning >> >>> We cannot connect to https://example.net using TLS ("Get >>> https

[users@httpd] HSTS verification

When checking for https HSTS compliance on htstpreload.org I get a warning > We cannot connect to https://example.net using TLS ("Get https://example.net: > http: server gave HTTP response to HTTPS client"). And I do not understand how this can be. The page in questions loads as https with a

Re: [users@httpd] School Project cancelled

On 30 Apr 2021, at 18:48, Ruben Safir wrote: > On 4/30/21 6:36 PM, emily.bun...@aol.com.INVALID wrote: >> >> My Daddy will help me to pursue legal action for obstructing me from >> doing my school project. > > lovely Well, that sock puppet was the dumbest thing I've read today, and I just read

Re: [users@httpd] SSLCipherSuite DEFAULT

On 20 Apr 2021, at 13:20, Jim Albert wrote: > On 4/20/2021 2:56 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >> Right, and I am running the current version of OpenSSL which, for example, >> doesn't support SSLv3 or TLSv1.1. > > I'd be surprised if that were true. > If you run 'openssl ciphers

Re: [users@httpd] SSLCipherSuite DEFAULT

On 20 Apr 2021, at 09:45, Jim Albert wrote: > On 4/20/2021 9:48 AM, @lbutlr wrote: >> If I define SSLCipherSuite DEFAULT will apache show the ciphers that are >> defined by openSSL and will be used? >> >> Is this the best way to go, or should I specifica

[users@httpd] SSLCipherSuite DEFAULT

If I define SSLCipherSuite DEFAULT will apache show the ciphers that are defined by openSSL and will be used? Is this the best way to go, or should I specifically list TLSv1.2 and TLS1.3? The complete list of ciphers that openssl supports numbers 60 and still includes some 14 TLSv1 ciphers

Re: [users@httpd] config is silently ignored

On 20 Apr 2021, at 06:59, Adrian wrote: > Daniel Ferradal wrote: >> >> ServerName whatever.example.com >> Redirect / https://whatever.example.com/ >> CustomLog logs/whatevever.example.com.log common >> This is one more line that my port 80 configs have, I do not log connections to port 80.

Re: [users@httpd] How can I configure “apache2” correctly using multiple sites through VirtualHost?

20 Apr 2021, at 06:25, Marcel Roșca wrote: > I configured two sites using the "VirtualHost" method in apache2, but if > there is an error in the first configuration file when I call my site, it > enters the second site. my configuration files are: This is very confusing. Using white space to

Re: [users@httpd] prompting for user+passwd for a websocket proxied url

On 09 Apr 2021, at 03:08, karrageorgiou giannis wrote: > have a ws:// url proxied That's a new one for me, what is ws:// ?? -- "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.." - Oscar Wilde - To

Re: [users@httpd] Wordpress | user:group setting

On 04 Apr 2021, at 17:05, Daniel Ferradal wrote: > Set it to root:root, change them when you need to update and set them > back to root:root when finished. That is not the norm as far as the servers I see. Www:staff or www:wheel or www:www are the usual permission. Directories are 755, files

Re: [users@httpd] Apache in under attack.

On 14 Jan 2021, at 04:48, Jason Long wrote: > Server have 4 CPU cores and 6GB of RAM. > I pasted Apache configuration. In your opinion, which parts of servers must > be examine? Throwing more resources at the problem is not likely to fix the problem. You need to figure out what is going on

Re: [users@httpd] Apache in under attack.

> On 12 Jan 2021, at 01:52, Jason Long wrote: > > It show me: > > 13180 X.X.X.X >1127 X.X.X.X > 346 X.X.X.X > 294 X.X.X.X > 241 X.X.X.X > 169 X.X.X.X > 168 X.X.X.X > 157 X.X.X.X > 155 X.X.X.X > 153 X.X.X.X Your server would not be getting bogged down

Re: [users@httpd] How to config Authz form ?

On 03 Jan 2021, at 16:23, Jens Kallup wrote: > I would inform you, that all is done, and working well. > Now, I have a simple two-factor authz. How did you fix it? -- I desire the things that will destroy me in the end. -

Re: [users@httpd] failure using wss proxy

On 16 Dec 2020, at 08:03, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > that the server was only accepting TLSv1.3 I would consider that to be a misconfiguration at this point. TLSv1.2 is fully supported and current and a server that requires TLSv1.3 is doing something wrong. -- I get the feeling that

Re: [users@httpd] To Gzip or not?

On 12 Dec 2020, at 06:59, @lbutlr wrote: > TLS 1.4 1.3 -- "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "Well, I think so, Brain, but snort no, no, it's too stupid!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsub

Re: [users@httpd] To Gzip or not?

On 10 Dec 2020, at 07:38, Tom Browder wrote: > When I last serious upgrades to my servers last July one problem with using > TLS 1.3 was that the Firefox browser couldn't use it as because of > post-handshake problems. So I'm currently running TLSv1.2. Firefox in general? Or some specific (or

Re: [users@httpd] Questions to SSLciphersuite

On 27 Nov 2020, at 08:34, Lentes, Bernd wrote: > I have an elder software (ServersAlive) ,,, > What can i do ? You need software that works with modern current security. Seems to me like your old software is using SSL which is insecure and not supported and should NOT be used. Trying to

Re: [users@httpd] Bad Gateway with large file upload

On 28 Oct 2020, at 18:05, eric tse wrote: > We’re are getting a Bad Gateway error returned when trying to upload large > files through an IE browser to our webserver. Have you tried with a currently supported browser? IE is on death watch. -- If I were you boys, I wouldn't talk or even

Re: [users@httpd] Recommended best practices or guides

On 29 Sep 2020, at 08:33, Niranjan Rao wrote: > We have a need to allow certain group of people to perform operations such as > start/stop/reload etc. Traditionally these operations are performed using > sudo command e.g. sudo service apache2 start. These people don't need full > sudo

Re: [users@httpd] Base server versus virtual servers

On 02 Sep 2020, at 04:52, Tom Browder wrote: > My question is: what is a "base server" in this context. For many years I > have always listed my main virtual host as the base server but that was > pre-OCSP. Do I now have to run a non-https server? The name I define in https.conf as ServerName

Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 access control (.htaccess)

On 29 Jul 2020, at 17:57, Jim Albert wrote: > If I have say 100 separate sections I have to repeat that same > Require ip line for each . Adding or removing IP addresses becomes a > maintenance issue. In regular conf files you can do something like Define DOMAIN example.com Define ROOT

Re: [users@httpd] client removal of .htaccess file

On 19 Jul 2020, at 05:48, Joel wrote: > Does the .htaccess file physically remain in the directory where it was > initially loaded? Or, does the server remove, transfer, or otherwise dispose > of the file? Impossible for anyone else to answer this who is not in charge of the server. Just as

Re: [users@httpd] Test an SSL certificate before installation

On 02 Jul 2020, at 14:08, Yves Goergen wrote: > I'd like to let my users install their own SSL certificates through a web > interface for self-management services. WOuldn't it be simpler to just get a LE cert for those domains? What is the advantage to having them upload their own certs? --

Re: [users@httpd] Let's Encrypt (LE) and port 80

On 17 Jun 2020, at 16:37, Tom Browder wrote: > Thanks for the info--but all I'm only running a dozen or so hosts on a single > server Same. > and trying to minimize maintenance. Zero maintenance. Set it up once and forget it. It is all automated. -- 'They're the cream!' Rincewind sighed.

Re: [users@httpd] Let's Encrypt (LE) and port 80

On 17 Jun 2020, at 07:05, Tom Browder wrote: > > Now with my new Apache 2.4.43 I'm ready to automate the process. Is there any > way to allow port 80 access but only from an LE server? In addition to the other replies, you can use the DNS-01 method for establishing and rewriting a cert. That

[users@httpd] Authentication plugins/front end

I'm not sure exactly what I am looking for, so not sure exactly what to search for. Basically, I would like to add authentication to web applications or sites that have no support for authentication, and I wonder if there is some sort of plugin for apache that I can use that sits between the

Re: [users@httpd] ErrorDocument directory hierarchy

On 20 May 2020, at 13:57, Paul wrote: > On 2020-05-20 1:23 p.m., Eric Covener wrote: >> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:10 PM Paul wrote: >>> >>> VirtualHost on 2.4.29-1ubuntu4.13. .conf includes : >>> DocumentRoot "/www/mysite" >>> /.../ >>> ErrorDocument 404 /error/404.html >>> >>>

Re: [users@httpd] Debugging apache configs

On 01 May 2020, at 16:19, Rich Bowen wrote: (Tried to fix the quote levels, apologies if I missed something) >> The login in apache is… well, terrible? Appalling? Almost entirely a waste >> of disk space? > > You can configure it to whatever level suits you. That's your choice. Changing

Re: [users@httpd] Odd 302s in the logs

On 01 May 2020, at 15:41, Rich Bowen wrote: > That's what we call referrer spam. I've never really understood what the > point was, but they make requests with bogus information in the referral > field, which then ends up in your log files. Somehow this makes them feel > good about themselves.

Re: [users@httpd] Debugging apache configs

On 01 May 2020, at 15:38, Rich Bowen wrote: > On the other hand, adding a bunch of additional debug level prints in the URL > mapping modules would serve the same purpose. But, again, that doesn't exist > at this time, as far as I'm aware. The login in apache is… well, terrible? Appalling?

[users@httpd] Odd 302s in the logs

Seeing a Loy of lines like this in the logs (mixed in with all the attemepts to accesses wordprex/admin-login types of URLS, of course) 46.118.227.27 - - [01/May/2020:15:10:37 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 302 213 "https://french-poetry.com/; "Mozilla/4.7 (compatible; OffByOne; Windows 2000) Webster

Re: [users@httpd] Problem new virtual host

On 01 May 2020, at 08:55, Rich Bowen wrote: > The fact that you can "ping" it seems to point to options 2 or 3 in that list. Maybe. Ping doesn’t require DNS. -- I WILL STOP TALKING ABOUT THE TWELVE INCH PIANIST Bart chalkboard Ep. 3F07

Re: [users@httpd] Debugging apache configs

On 01 May 2020, at 08:52, Rich Bowen wrote: > On 4/30/20 6:08 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >> I'm trying to troubleshoot a Domain that is loading the wrong content (Well, >> I am sure it is loading the RIGHT content, but not the INTENED content) and >> was wondering if there is

Re: [users@httpd] Debugging apache configs

On 30 Apr 2020, at 16:08, @lbutlr wrote: > A trace, essentially. What I am thinking is something along the lines of: Apache received http://w.example.com/ Redirected https://w.example.com/ DocumentRoot /usr/local/www/example/web/ Loading DocumentIndex index.php fcgi redirect /

[users@httpd] Debugging apache configs

I'm trying to troubleshoot a Domain that is loading the wrong content (Well, I am sure it is loading the RIGHT content, but not the INTENED content) and was wondering if there is a flag for apachectl that will show me what apache thinks the document root is for each vhost? And possibly a way of

Re: [users@httpd] Why does httpd consume more memory over a period of time ?

On 20 Mar 2020, at 03:42, Satish Chhatpar 02 wrote: > Why does httpd consume more memory over a period of time ? It doesn’t. > Any know issues with this version of Apache ? > > > We are using below version of OS and HTTPD in our production. > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.5

Re: [users@httpd] Apache on windows

On 27 Feb 2020, at 17:10, Paul wrote: > On 2020-02-27 3:56 p.m., @lbutlr wrote: >> On 26 Feb 2020, at 18:58, wtf wrote: >>> -- >>> >>> With over 1.2 billion >>> devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is &

Re: [users@httpd] Apache on windows

On 26 Feb 2020, at 18:58,  Good Guy  wrote: > -- > > With over 1.2 billion > devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is > higher than any previous version of windows. > > Seriously? Please don’t post garbage formatting like

Re: [users@httpd] Configuration question

On 27 Jan 2020, at 19:27, Richard wrote: > If you're trying to serve your content via http, which appears to be > your goal, then to serve it out on different ports - without using > the apache virtual host configuration - you'd need to have multiple > instances of apache running. That's

Re: [users@httpd] SSL certificate update failed - httpd-2.4.6-90.el7

On 07 Jan 2020, at 21:20, Sac Isilia wrote: > "apache and IIS are communicating is where your problem appears to be" - How > to trace that IIS and apache are communicating. No Idea, I do not use IIS. > Because the existing certificate works fine. The problem arises only when new > certificate

Re: [users@httpd] SSL certificate update failed - httpd-2.4.6-90.el7

On 07 Jan 2020, at 06:53, Sac Isilia wrote: > apachectl -S This isn’t going to help as long as the server facing the outside is an IIS server and not apache. However apache and IIS are communicating is where your problem appears to be. I bet if you can access the apache server directly

Re: [users@httpd] Access control, VirtualHost & Apache 2.4

On 06 Jan 2020, at 11:21, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > If I add > > -- > >Require all granted > > -- > > This seems to work. FSVO of “work” that include potentialy allowing access to every single file in every singe directory on your system, sure. You should never ever change

Re: [users@httpd] SSL certificate update failed - httpd-2.4.6-90.el7

On 04 Jan 2020, at 10:02, Sac Isilia wrote: > ah01909: rsa certificate configured for xxx:443 does not include an > id which matches the server name > > Please help me in resolving this issue. That seems clear to me. What is the server name and what are the servers listed in the

Re: [users@httpd] Enabling SHA1 for client certificates

On 23 Oct 2019, at 09:38, Stefan Eissing wrote: > "WARNING at this time setting the security level higher than 1 for general > internet use is likely to cause considerable interoperability issues and is > not recommended. This is because the SHA1 algorithm is very widely used in > certificates

Re: [users@httpd] Enabling SHA1 for client certificates

On 23 Oct 2019, at 03:49, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I know that SHA1 is insecure these days, but I have no control over the > algorithms used in this particular CA, and I need to be able to use it. This is a case of pushing back to get the incompetent CA to update. Even if you manage to get

Re: [users@httpd] AuthzSendUnauthorizeOnFailure?

On Oct 2, 2019, at 5:53 PM, Jack Simmons wrote: > Is it possible to force apache to return HTTP 401 instead of HTTP [403] if > any condition inside RequireAll fails? The two codes mean different things. 401 basically means “hey, you need to login or login again” (Unauthorized) while 403 means

Re: [users@httpd] protect apache to stop work if logdir is missing

On Sep 10, 2019, at 3:39 AM, Anton Gorlov wrote: > 10.09.2019 5:09, @lbutlr пишет: >> On Sep 9, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Anton Gorlov wrote: >>> I need to provide users with the ability to archive logs on their own >> Yes? And? You’ve been told two ways to do this that

Re: [users@httpd] protect apache to stop work if logdir is missing

On Sep 9, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Anton Gorlov wrote: > I need to provide users with the ability to archive logs on their own Yes? And? You’ve been told two ways to do this that do not require modifying the source code. - To

Re: [users@httpd] protect apache to stop work if logdir is missing

On 9 Sep 2019, at 10:13, Anton Gorlov wrote: > 09.09.2019 19:07, @lbutlr пишет: >> On 9 Sep 2019, at 09:57, Anton Gorlov >> wrote: >> >>> I need the web server to continue working if the user has deleted the log >>> directory. >>> >> I

Re: [users@httpd] protect apache to stop work if logdir is missing

On 9 Sep 2019, at 09:57, Anton Gorlov wrote: > I need the web server to continue working if the user has deleted the log > directory. I would solve this by preventing the user from deleting the directory or recreating it on deletion, not by patching the source code. -- 'There's a kind of

Re: [users@httpd] Has anybody used a SQL database to store static pages without using PHP?

On 1 Sep 2019, at 01:39, timothylegg . wrote: > Can you store an entire static page in an SQL database such as MariaDB > or MySQL and have httpd initiate the database query by parsing the > search parameter from the URL? i.e. > https://www.example.org/benny/index.html would search a table for >

Re: [users@httpd] Issue while generating large documents

On 22 Aug 2019, at 11:03, Santosh Kondapuram wrote: > This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it may contain > confidential and proprietary information and are intended solely for the use > of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Any unauthorized > review, use,

Re: [users@httpd] apache 2.4.29 ubuntu 18.04 VirtualHost ssl redirect not working?

On 13 Aug 19, at 10:48 , gene me wrote: > Solution: My mistake was leaving "DocumentRoot" commented out. I thought the > root specification in "80" section might suffice, but no. Once I fixed that - > everything works. All correct pages are shown. > > I think at least a warning from Apache

Re: [users@httpd] Blocking particular URL/file patterns

On 2 Jul 2019, at 14:16, James Moe wrote: > /condalia1398.xml.gz > /heling348628-h1819-746-be2dochmiacal-97a2-/6a465d7hll78i1/ … > Is there a way to write a filter that blocks the above URL patterns > without generating a 404 response? Have you looked into robots.txt? And a sitemap? --

Re: [users@httpd] Adding perl-cgi in apache 2.4

On 18 Jun 2019, at 22:03, @lbutlr wrote: > I need to enable perl-cgi for a specific directory local to a single site. I just punted and rewrote the the script in php. -- You only had to look into Teatime's mismatched eyes to know one thing, which was this: if Teatime wanted to find you

Re: [users@httpd] Adding perl-cgi in apache 2.4

On 19 Jun 2019, at 09:00, Bret Stern wrote: > Your original post log error indicated: > > No such file or directory: AH01241: exec of '/usr/local/www/bi/cgi- > local/b4.pl' failed > > Perhaps the path for cgi scripts has been changed/redifined from the > default in the apache config file # ls

Re: [users@httpd] Adding perl-cgi in apache 2.4

On 19 Jun 2019, at 00:25, bret_st...@machinemanagement.com wrote: > Permissions on the executable/.pl > script correct to run when called? Permissions are the same they’ve been since 2004, 777. On 19 Jun 2019, at 05:07, Eric Covener wrote: > bad shebang in the file itself? Suspicious that you

[users@httpd] Adding perl-cgi in apache 2.4

I need to enable perl-cgi for a specific directory local to a single site. I uncommented cgi in http.conf LoadModule cgid_module libexec/apache24/mod_cgid.so In the conf for the site in question I have the following: AllowOverride All Require all granted

[users@httpd] Re: Control / Modify the HTTP Status Line

On 22 May 2019, at 14:29, Shmuel Krakower wrote: > I guess I should add few pieces of information. > The client is one SaaS and the backend is another SaaS. The backend returns > 302 which is right but the client consider anything which is not 2xx as error > which cause it to retry. So, that

[users@httpd] Re: Control / Modify the HTTP Status Line

On 22 May 2019, at 12:00, Shmuel Krakower wrote: > I am using Apache for proxying a backend server. > The backend server may return, in some occaisons, a 302 response code for > successful requests. This is incorrect behavior and you should fix that, not try to hack the reply codes. --

[users@httpd] Re: CVE-2019-0211/0215/0217

On 6 Apr 2019, at 08:59, Sunhux G wrote: > Are above CVEs affecting Apache httpd (ie web servers) 2.4.x only > & other lower versions (eg: our Solaris 10's Apache/2.0.63) are not > affected? The CVE lists, explicitly, what versions are affected. "The flaw was discovered by Charles Fol and

[users@httpd] Re: apache service unavailable

On 13 Mar 2019, at 23:26, @lbutlr wrote: > "The service is not available. Please try again later." Never mind. The issue was not apache related at all, it was a misconfiguration/corruption of pound that came to light after the reboot. -- "We're philosophers. We thin

[users@httpd] Re: apache service unavailable

forgot to include the version info. On 13 Mar 2019, at 23:26, @lbutlr wrote: > apachectl -S reports no errors. # apachectl -V Server version: Apache/2.4.37 (FreeBSD) Server built: unknown Server's Module Magic Number: 20120211:83 Server loaded: APR 1.6.5, APR-UTIL 1.6.1 Compiled using:

[users@httpd] apache service unavailable

Due to a large blizzard, we lost power for some period of time today, and the server's UPS didn't hold out. After the power was back, https responds to all attempts to connect with "The service is not available. Please try again later." displayed in the browser. Nothing shows up in the

[users@httpd] Re: How to block Apache2 from showing dir lists on Ubuntu 16.04 server...

Bo Berglund wrote: > equire valid-user > Options -Indexes > DirectoryIndex dirlist.php Does you main configuration have AllowOverride? > I even went as far as editing the > /etc/apache2/sites-available/000-default.conf file and adding this to > the end of the directory block: I didn't know

[users@httpd] Re: Graceful shutdown of apache

On 10 Dec 2018, at 10:11, Hemant Chaudhary wrote: > I have updated apache-2.4.29 to apache-2.4.37 but still I am not able to > graceful shutdown in debug mode. What do you mean by a graceful shutdown? The graceful command doesn’t shutdown apache. If you are using graceful-stop then that

[users@httpd] Re: Configuring redirects from http to https

On Mon Dec 03 2018 12:17:01 Jack M. Nilles said: > > > > Should be just fine. -- And I was grounded while you filled the skies I was dumbfounded by truth; you cut through lies - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[users@httpd] Re: SSL Handshake Exception in call from Android

On 02 Nov 2018, at 14:58, Jerry Malcolm wrote: > The same Android app calls Google Maps https with no problem and also calls > another server with https that I do not own with no problem. So I'm assuming > I have something wrong in my httpd config. But I need some help figuring it > out.

[users@httpd] Re: Warning from users@httpd.apache.org

On 03 Nov 2018, at 07:26, Leland wrote: > Return-Path: <> > Received: (qmail 11330 invoked for bounce); 23 Oct 2018 17:04:55 - > Date: 23 Oct 2018 17:04:55 - > From: mailer-dae...@apache.org > To: users-digest-return-1181...@httpd.apache.org > Subject: failure notice Your mail server

[users@httpd] Re: Failed to acquire SSL session cache lock

On 22 Oct 2018, at 08:02, Muhammad Hernawan wrote: > please create new thread for your issue Says the person who posted 4 times for one issue… -- Up the airy mountains, down the rushy glen... From ghosties and bogles and long-leggity beasties... My mother said I never should... We dare not go

[users@httpd] Re: Failed to acquire SSL session cache lock apache2.4 on Ubuntu 18.04

On 21 Oct 2018, at 01:13, Muhammad Hernawan wrote: > I use Apache/2.4.29 (Ubuntu 18.04). I use http2 and ssl-stapling. Here is the > info: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apache2/+bug/1565744 perhaps? (first google hit) -- "But you read a lot of books, I'm thinking. Hard to have

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 06 Oct 2018, at 17:59, Filipe Cifali wrote: > It's described on the CustomLog docs: > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_log_config.html#customlog > > "The second argument specifies what will be written to the log file. It can > specify either a ***nickname*** defined by a

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 03 Oct 2018, at 17:11, @lbutlr wrote: > It’ been over 4 hours now (almost 5) and the site is still responding > perfectly. Well, I am more confused. I changed the log from common to debug and the site has been fine for days now. - CustomLog /home/user/logs/XXX.access_log co

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 04 Oct 2018, at 13:20, Filipe Cifali wrote: > And the docs, this project is open source, we can change (or rather, propose > changes) to documentation anytime we want. Sure, but first you have to figure out the multiple layers of complexity in the current docs. -- Boy, it sure would be

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 04 Oct 2018, at 11:50, Filipe Cifali wrote: > You want to use a CustomLog for virtualhost config to gather the most info > you can from the request: > > https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_log_config.html#customlog Ugh. That is a terrible bit of documentation written by and for

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 03 Oct 2018, at 18:27, Filipe Cifali wrote: > you can for example turn log level to debug and access the site, tailing the > logs should provide some information about what is breaking. Is it possible to set the log level just for a virtual host? I thought that was a server-wide setting. I

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 03 Oct 2018, at 12:27, @lbutlr wrote: > There is exactly one line in the site configuration that, when commented, > makes the site work again. Though, possibly only for a little while. I’ll > have to check more in 3-4 hours. There is no other proxy logic at all. It’ been over 4

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 03 Oct 2018, at 12:07, Filipe Cifali wrote: > you can check what virtualhost is being served via apache2ctl like this: $ > apache2ctl -S > $ apache2ctl -h provides this info: > -S : a synonym for -t -D DUMP_VHOSTS -D DUMP_RUN_CFG Yes that is all fine, and the site was

[users@httpd] Re: 0 length robot.txt

On 03 Oct 2018, at 11:39, @lbutlr wrote: > Removing that file made the site load properly. Well, it did for about 3h25 minutes, in fact. Just after posting the message, the site went back to showing only “File Not Found” I’m at a loss. The only other issue I see is in the main http-error

[users@httpd] 0 length robot.txt

This is probably a coincidence, but I had one of my hosted sites (with no php code anywhere, and certainly no .php files) returning a script error on load instead of showing the non-php webpage: [proxy_fcgi:error] [pid 88148] [client xx.xx.xx.xx:63137] AH01071: Got error 'Primary script

[users@httpd] Re: Updating to php 7.0 and having apache still work?

On 01 Oct 2018, at 13:49, Filipe Cifali wrote: > This seems to be a problem inside mod_fcgi and not httpd, proxies in general > don't care about what's the language behind it, as long as the protocol is > being respected. Yes, that was my understanding as well, but even when I recompiled

[users@httpd] Re: Updating to php 7.0 and having apache still work?

On 30 Sep 2018, at 12:11, Jonathon Koyle wrote: > Simply to avoid assumptions, did you update php-fpm to 7 as well? php-fpm is built as part of the core php, it is not a separate package. # pkg info php56 php56-5.6.38 Name : php56 Version: 5.6.38 Installed on : Fri Sep 28

[users@httpd] Re: Updating to php 7.0 and having apache still work?

On 29 Sep 2018, at 21:02, Frank Gingras wrote: > As for the "filter_var" error, you're missing a php extension/module. No, I'm not. filter is built in to php and is properly listed in php -m On 30 Sep 2018, at 03:43, Carmel NY wrote: > Add the following to the "/etc/make.conf" file: > >

[users@httpd] Re: Updating to php 7.0 and having apache still work?

On 29 Sep 2018, at 05:59, Frank Gingras wrote: > "Everything breaks" isn't really a useful statement. Be more specific if you > want more precise feedback. I mentioned a couple of the issues in the original post, which are either fcgi cannot find the scripts to run, or there is an error with

[users@httpd] Re: Updating to php 7.0 and having apache still work?

On 28 Sep 2018, at 16:15, Frank Gingras wrote: > Consider the wiki article: > > http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/php That's not helpful. I already have proxy_fcgi working with php56. The issue is that everything breaks whenever I try to update to php70 -- The "H" in Jesus H Christ comes from

[users@httpd] Updating to php 7.0 and having apache still work?

Once again I have tried, and failed, to move from php 5.6 to php 7.0 (using postmaster under FreeBSD 11.3-RELEASE). The results are largely the same, php pages don’t load either "Primary script unknown” or complaints about filter(0 (which is built in to both php56 and php70). I’m sure this is

[users@httpd] Reverse proxy

If I have a secondary web service service running on www.example.com:8000 and I want to create a reverse proxy on port 8001, how do I prevent users from connecting to :8000 anyway? - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[users@httpd] Re: DocumentRoot in ProxyPass?

On 19 Sep 2018, at 14:41, Eric Covener wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:35 PM @lbutlr wrote: >> >> Is it possible to do something along these lines in the apache.conf files? >> >> DocumentRoot /usr/local/www/roundcube/ >> ProxyPassMatch ^/(.*\.php)$ fcgi:

[users@httpd] DocumentRoot in ProxyPass?

Is it possible to do something along these lines in the apache.conf files? DocumentRoot /usr/local/www/roundcube/ ProxyPassMatch ^/(.*\.php)$ fcgi://127.0.0.1:9000${DocumnetRoot}$1 (that is, not have to repeat the information that is already in the configuration) -- I WAS NOT TOUCHED

[users@httpd] Re: Testing for apache open relaying

On 05 Sep 2018, at 09:58, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > So I suspect my apache server as a proxy relay. > > Is there a similar site to mxtoolbox that will test apache for improper > relaying? Are you allowing php? You should be able to root out any badly behaved mail scripts. You should check

[users@httpd] Re: How do I enable HTTP or HTTPS Redirection on my Apache HTTP servers to my Blogger and Wordpress blogs?

On 13 Aug 2018, at 19:14, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > How do I enable HTTP or HTTPS Redirection on my Apache HTTP servers to my > Blogger and Wordpress blogs? Do you mean to blogger.coma nd WordPress.com or are these local to your machine? There are verious ways to redirect, but

[users@httpd] Re: [OT] bounced messages

On 13 Aug 2018, at 13:43, James Moe wrote: > > I received a note from the list manager complaining that our server > has rejected an unconscionable number of message. > Has there been some configuration change of the mailing list recently? > > There are reasons for the rejections: our SPAM

[users@httpd] Re: Website Down - Help Really Needed

On 18 Jun 2018, at 13:21, Macksymil Marketplace wrote: > sudo -i /etc/apache2/sites-available/000-default.conf-bash: > /etc/apache2/sites-available/000-default.conf: Permission denied Not sure why you’re using sudo? The error in the screenshot specifically points to line 31 in the conf file

[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 and DirectoryIndex and htaccess

On 13 Jun 2018, at 11:25, Frank Gingras wrote: > What does the error log say, exactly? From the original message: > The only thing in the http-error.log is: > > [Mon Jun 11 12:26:28.390150 2018] [ssl:info] [pid 34433] [client > xx.xx.xx.xx:56493] AH01964: Connection to child 9 established … >

[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 and DirectoryIndex and htaccess

No ideas? On 11 Jun 2018, at 12:34, @lbutlr wrote: > I can access the files directly, but if I access the folder, I get a > permission error. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For addi

[users@httpd] Apache 2.4 and DirectoryIndex and htaccess

I have a working webroot, and it has an index.php file. In httpd.conf I havre DirectoryIndex for /usr/local/www set to “index.php index.html" I create a folder under the webroot named foo and I put an index.html file in the folder. I can access the files directly, but if I access the folder, I

[users@httpd] Re: Distribution repository vs compiled.

On 01 Jun 2018, at 00:09, Mimiko wrote: > Tell me, please, what's better to use in production: > 1) Precompiled binaries of apache httpd from distribution > 2) or Self compiled from sources > > What are the risks for each options and pro and cons of each? Which is better to use in our company

[users@httpd] Re: TLS 1.3

On Mar 29, 2018, at 02:17, Michael A. Peters wrote: > TLS 1.3 *mandates* PFS so you don't accidentally enable a cipher that does > not have it, and that is a HUGE benefit. Yes, sorry about that. -- This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

[users@httpd] Re: TLS 1.3

On 2018-03-28 (09:02 MDT), David Mehler wrote: > > What are some advantages of 1.3? Faster. Less kruft. Drops many near-EOL cryptos. But the main one is that is allows Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) which means that even is someone captures the traffic and stores it, and

[users@httpd] TLS 1.3

Now that TLS 1.3 has been approved, what is the status of using it with Apache? Last I heard apache 2.4 couldn't build agains openssl 1.1, but that was a year ago. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

  1   2   >