[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[cobalt-users] Qube 3 NIC Problems (maybe?)
- Subject: [cobalt-users] Qube 3 NIC Problems (maybe?)
- From: "Chris Lathem" <clathem@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri Dec 22 06:16:01 2000
- List-id: Mailing list for users to share thoughts on Cobalt products. <cobalt-users.list.cobalt.com>
My Qube 3 purchased about a month ago went down on me Wednesday. From what i
can tell, i think either the 1st NIC went bad in it (if the two ports are on
separate NICs) or I had a problem in my OS. I called Cobalt 3 times, and was
eventually told the only thing i could do was to do an OS restore, or to
send it to them for a restore. I managed to finally get it to go into the
network setup of the primary interface. On the first screen where it asks
for an IP address normally, it just shows a bunch of numbers. They look
somthing like this:
430.286-1987770
=234.187638.020
In order to retrieve my data, i had to use the secondary interface. Does
anyone have any idea of whats going on?
Thanks,
Chris Lathem
SkyHawke Technologies
clathem@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(601)605.6100 Ext. 109
-----Original Message-----
From: cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
cobalt-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 5:31 AM
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: cobalt-users digest, Vol 1 #1838 - 20 msgs
Send cobalt-users mailing list submissions to
cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cobalt-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cobalt-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Get me off the ORBS list (Sam)
2. Re: OT: hosts.deny info (Rik Thomas)
3. RE: Get me off the ORBS list (Tomi Crnicki)
4. RE: RaQ4-en-OSUpdate-1.0.pkg (Andrew Witham)
5. RE: Get me off the ORBS list (Dan Kriwitsky)
6. Re: CGIWRAP (H.P. Stroebel)
7. Re: ORBS/abuse.net relay test (Frank Cubillos)
8. RaQ3-All-Security-3.0.1-8577.pkg (Mike Fritsch)
9. Re: Get me off the ORBS list (Carrie Linn Bartkowiak)
10. Re: FTP problems for admin (Carrie Linn Bartkowiak)
11. Re: ORBS/abuse.net relay test (Carrie Linn Bartkowiak)
12. [qube2] wireless pci card (David Liu)
13. Re: RaQ4-en-OSUpdate-1.0.pkg (Carrie Linn Bartkowiak)
14. dash in username means no ftp [RaQ4] (Carrie Linn Bartkowiak)
15. Followup: unrecoverable errors on /dev/hda4 (Chip)
16. RE: Get me off the ORBS list (Jerald C Jones)
17. CacheRaQ2 (Brian Watters)
18. RE: Can anyone recommend a good storefront/ecommerce package? (Rodolfo
J. Paiz (E-mail))
19. RE: Get me off the ORBS list (Rodolfo J. Paiz (E-mail))
20. RE: All folders visable on whole server (Carrie Bartkowiak)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:16:50 -0500
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Sam <smoats@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] Get me off the ORBS list
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
I have been following this thread for a while. You can block 99.9+% of the
dialup spam in my experiance (I don't have research to back this up just my
observations
so feel free to disregard them) useing the MAPS RBL.
I personally do use orbs and I think it is a brilliant idea, there is no
reason for a responsible sys-admin to operate an open relay.
To handle dialup spam on a cobalt the maps DUL dialup list will stop
a large amount
of it from dialups with a negligable loss of real mail. (near 0) I can write
a cf fragment for anyone who is interested your you can get instructions
for the M4
method of implemention from http://www.orbs.org
Sam
At 12:25 PM 12/21/2000 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 12/21/00 11:19:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>rikt@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
><< Internet community. These rogue groups are gaining more power and more
> respect as relay raping gains in popularity, your upstream or colo
> provider could even be blackholed. Now that is serious.
> >>
>
>well the big ones like aol or sprint or quest etc do not use orbs and it is
>unlikely they get blackholed...
>
>The fun thing is...when you close a relay a 'real psammer' will use a
program
>where his dial-up acts as a mailserver, so you are in what can be compared
to
>the 50's and 60's arms race....perhaps it is better to spend energy in
>channeling UCE
>
>but then we need to go to another discussion list , this is not cobalt
>related anymore
>
>_______________________________________________
>cobalt-users mailing list
>cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
>http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
>
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: "Rik Thomas" <rikt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] OT: hosts.deny info
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:39:54 -0500
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Brake" <diana@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 8:17 PM
Subject: [cobalt-users] OT: hosts.deny info
> Hi,
>
> Does the hosts.deny file prevent FTP access? I know Port Sentry doesn't
> write to that file for unauthorized access attempts using FTP, but if I
> write to it by hand will it affect someone trying to use anonymous as an
> ID? Could someone clarify exactly what the hosts.deny files denies?
>
> thanks so much and Merry Christmas all
>
> Diana
> Crest Communications, Inc. diana@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Beautiful Sunny Florida http://crestcommunications.com/
> 352-495-9359, 425-732-9785 fax
Basically tcpwrappers will wrap anything that runs from inetd. A tutorial
can be found below:
http://computers.iwz.com/linux/tcpwrap.html
--__--__--
Message: 3
From: "Tomi Crnicki" <tcrnicki@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Abacus
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:58:24 +0100
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] Get me off the ORBS list
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Great, now ORBS is searching for "potential" spamming servers now
> and not just tagging ones known for spamming.
You get on the ORBS list ONLY if you have a verified open relay.
> Somebody has got to
> get rid of this ORBS crap, I know someone who had to completely
> change the IP address of their server because it was the only way
> to get off the ORBS system (they got there by one user sending a
> promotional email to 150 past customers ONCE).
Getting of the list isn't a big issue if you have resolved the open
relay problem. A few years ago we got on the ORBS list when a
spammer used our open relay on a system that had a older
sendmail with a default open relay. This was entirely our mistake
and after closing the relay we got of the list in a few hours.
> I am officially
> boycotting the ORBS database personally, and I would highly
> recommend that anyone else who values their freedom to run a
> server on the internet should do the same thing.
On the other hand we think entirely different. Even through the
ORBS and VIX systems are far from fault proof and rely on a few
people I heard many don't like (I don't know the people behing the
systems personaly and really don't care as they are doing
something we think is good) they are currently the only good way
to stop most of the spam coming into our mail servers. The best
thing that makes this better than most other spam preventing
methods is that filters are updated dynamically and we don't have
to waste time.
Recently we decided to modify our sendmails to deny mail from
hosts on the blacklists after the ratio of spam to regular E-mail
went up to 5:1. After we did this we get very little spam and the
ones that manage to come in is reported immediatelly back to
ORBS. This hopefully gets newly used open relays blacklisted for
the benefit of other ORBS users.
With a few hundred domains and a few thousand users only a
handfull of users had a problem with not getting mail from some
people. But this all was resolved fast when the postmster of the
SMTP that was denied closed it the open relay. On the other hand
our customers stopped complaining about SPAM and are acctually
very happy because of this service. We even got a few new
customers because we installed this service!
> Spam control is the responsibility of the servers admin, and should stay
there!
Unfortunatelly we do not agree. There are so many new mail server
admins with doubtable knowledge that you simply can't rely on
them. And we and probably many other admins have no time
educating them. ORBS educates them much faster as the
problems are immediate and the admins have to respond to
complaints by their users because of bounced E-mail messages.
We respect your view, but please respect our view too. It's up to
you to close the open relays. But if a spammer uses your services
it might acctually be us reporting this to ORBS.
Best regards,
Tomi Crnicki - Abacus, Croatia
--__--__--
Message: 4
From: "Andrew Witham" <awitham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] RaQ4-en-OSUpdate-1.0.pkg
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:19:01 -0800
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:cobalt-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of PowerClicks
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 3:39 PM
> To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] RaQ4-en-OSUpdate-1.0.pkg
>
> Updated a Raq4i and all looks good for now... no probs after reboot,
> services running ok....
>
> > Are there any 'guinea pigs' out there who have installed
> this RaQ4 udpate?
> > Are there any known problems with the update?
> >
> > http://www.cobalt.com/support/download/raq4.eng.html
> >
> > thanks,
> > Bill
Likewise here - all services back up and apparently running fine.
Drew
--__--__--
Message: 5
Reply-To: <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Dan Kriwitsky" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] Get me off the ORBS list
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:43:57 -0500
>
> How about spending a few minutes to block all incoming mail from dialup
> IP# blocks. That works quite well.
>
Just add da.uu.net to your blocks and get rid of tons.
--
Dan Kriwitsky
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:47:18 +0100
From: "H.P. Stroebel" <hpstr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] CGIWRAP
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MistaAviB@xxxxxxx schrieb:
>
> Hi! I am looking at something, I installed CGI wrap on a standard linux
box.
> I dont understand how cobalt set's etheirs up? Dont you need to have the
> username in there somewhere? I have the httpd config files exactly like
> cobalts but no luck? Did they (cobalt) build their own version? or is it
> apache or what?
it`s a customized version. you can ask them for the source as it`s GPL.
--
H. P. Stroebel, Germany
CGI-FAQ for Raq-Newbies :
http://users.iol.it/hpstr/
Apollo 13 - Commander : "Houston, we have a problem"
Win2000 - Administrator : "Redmond, we have 64000 problems"
--__--__--
Message: 7
From: "Frank Cubillos" <cubillos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] ORBS/abuse.net relay test
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:43:17 -0600
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.abuse.net/relay.html
Great way to test your server
Or
http://www.orbs.org/verify_1.html
My 2 cents
Frank
--__--__--
Message: 8
From: "Mike Fritsch" <mfritsch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Cobalt List" <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:53:09 -0800
Subject: [cobalt-users] RaQ3-All-Security-3.0.1-8577.pkg
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Has anyone installed RaQ3-All-Security-3.0.1-8577.pkg ?
Experiences?
Thanks
Mike
--__--__--
Message: 9
Reply-To: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Cobalt-Users" <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] Get me off the ORBS list
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:10:37 -0500
>>Millions of people in different races and religions have died
> > because of this exact sort of bull$hit. Just because I have the
capability
> > to send mail doesn't mean I'm going to allow spammers to use my server
and
> > won't take every legal action should I find one doing just that.
> >
>
> Wow, that is scary you making that comparison. I think simply you don't
> understand the problem of relaying. This is classic example of
> both sides not understanding the other. Don't take this wrong but you
> truly have no clue as to how bad relaying is. You both need to spend some
> time understanding how bad your relay is and what effect it has on the
> Internet community. These rogue groups are gaining more power and more
> respect as relay raping gains in popularity, your upstream or colo
> provider could even be blackholed. Now that is serious.
Rick, you say it's scary for me to make that comparison, then you turn right
around and use the phrase 'relay raping'.
What I'm saying is no more scarier than what you've said.
And yes, I do have some understanding of how bad it is... I've been an end
user receiving spam (and still am); I've reported spammers, I've been
involved in FBI investigations against hackers... all kinds of things, and
now that I have my own server I want to know how to keep *my* machine from
being used as a spam door. I don't want to be blacklisted and hence no mail
sent from my server or with our domain names in the mail will be accepted.
That's the reason I don't allow my clients to relay mail through the server,
so that my server and all of the domains on it won't be blacklisted because
of one rogue butthole. I'm trying to keep all of us safe.
All I'd like to know is what I can do to completely close down my server so
that the *only* mail going out from it, is that which is generated on the
server itself like through mail-to forms, or message boards that send out
thread subscriptions, etc.
Is there a way to do this? Shut it down completely except for that?
Carrie Bartkowiak
--__--__--
Message: 10
Reply-To: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] FTP problems for admin
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:58:17 -0500
> When you have more than 32 sites, this problem can occur. Admin can't
> be in more than 32 sites/groups (Linux limitation).
>
Florian's right.
Go into your /etc/group file and take 'admin' out of the sites where you
don't need him there (your clients sites, etc.)
Or take him out of all of the sites and use individual administrator logins
to maintain the sites...
Or you can set up alternative admins, each having a group of sites they can
ftp into that isn't bigger than 32.
Lots of stuff on this in the archives. I'm currently working on the
multi-site admin thing myself.
Carrie Bartkowiak
--__--__--
Message: 11
Reply-To: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] ORBS/abuse.net relay test
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:27:46 -0500
> http://www.abuse.net/relay.html
> Great way to test your server
> Or
> http://www.orbs.org/verify_1.html
> My 2 cents
> Frank
Okay. Abuse.Net tells me that all tests were performed, and all relaying was
denied. *relieved sigh*
Orbs' test says I'm not in the database and only gives me one option:
"I want to report this host to ORBS as insecure - please check it"
I don't want to REPORT my server as being insecure - I have no idea if it's
insecure! I just want to check it!
Arrgh.
I'm afraid to have ORBS check it because if there's something I need to fix
they'll automatically put me on the blacklist; no ifs ands or buts - now
that they have that "guilty without even being considered innocent" rule
that you have the *capacity* to spam so you must be exiled. *L*
Carrie Bartkowiak
--__--__--
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:08:50 -0800
From: David Liu <dyliu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cobalt-users] [qube2] wireless pci card
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
hi folks-
does anyone have any experience installing a wireless networking pci card
in the qube?? i'm thinking of install one of those 802.11-standard cards
for wireless networking.
anyone?
thanks
dave
Check your own email with your wireless web phone! Sign up now at
http://www.2301.com! It's fast and easy!
--__--__--
Message: 13
Reply-To: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] RaQ4-en-OSUpdate-1.0.pkg
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:15:18 -0500
> > > Are there any 'guinea pigs' out there who have installed
> > this RaQ4 udpate?
> > > Are there any known problems with the update?
Bill,
I've also installed this update (with the two prerequisites in place, of
course); and everything's running smoothly.
Granted, I backed up all server configuration files and then held my breath
and crossed my fingers while it was installing and rebooting... but
everything's okay. :)
Carrie Bartkowiak
--__--__--
Message: 14
Reply-To: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Carrie Linn Bartkowiak" <ravencarrie@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Cobalt-Users" <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:30:22 -0500
Subject: [cobalt-users] dash in username means no ftp [RaQ4]
Just a note on something I just discovered:
The Cobalt GUI will allow you to make a site administrator username with a
dash in it
(for example: blues-admin)
however, this username will *not* be allowed to FTP in to the machine. I
didn't check any other services, the FTP denial was enough for me. :)
I simply changed the username to 'blues' and now he can FTP in just fine.
(True username changed, 'blue' is just an example)
You guys probably all knew this already. ;)
Carrie Bartkowiak
--__--__--
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:40:51 -0800
To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Chip <chip@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [cobalt-users] Followup: unrecoverable errors on /dev/hda4
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chip wrote:
>> I've had this happen twice now, where this non-production server, only
>> about 3 months old, experiences a power failure and refuses to reboot.
and then Jeff wrote:
>What do you mean by "experiences a power failure"? Do you mean the
>exernal power to the RaQ is turned off? Or do you mean the Raq turns
>itself off? Or what?
Well, in this particular case, someone in the office shut off the UPS
attached to the Raq without realizing that the Raq was still on, so it was
a full external power loss to the Raq. Absent human ineptitude, the Raq
itself has been very stable.
>If any Linux/Unix system loses power without a proper shutodwn, it may
>have a lot of errors on fsck.
Yes, I've heard all sorts of horror stories from my hardcore Linux buddies
:)
>But if the system is crashing or locking up, and then a reboot shows
>these errors, it may be drive replacement time.
Well, the problem now is that I don't seem to be able to get fsck to fix
the errors. Each time I reboot, it says something close to "Errors in
/dev/hda4. Exiting to shell." I then run fsck manually, but it gives these
unrecoverable read errors and offers only to ignore them, not to fix
them. So, when I reboot again, I get the same message.
So do I have to restore the drive (not a lot is on it), or is there
something equivalent to SpinRite or Norton that will fix (i.e., write over)
the unreadable sectors of the disk?
And, given these errors, would it be wise to replace the drive anyway,
before the Raq goes to a colo NOC that is many miles from where I am?
Thanks again for everyone's help!
Chip
--__--__--
Message: 16
From: Jerald C Jones <jcjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] Get me off the ORBS list
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:39:21 -0700
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Spam is annoying, but honestly, it's not that big a deal.
>
I agree completely, why does everybody seem to be allergic to their delete
key? I delete hundreds of email messages a day (yes,
even when I am using a dial up account from out of town), and it's just not
that big of a deal.
JC Jones :)
--__--__--
Message: 17
Reply-To: <brwatters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Brian Watters" <brwatters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Cobalt-Users" <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:49:01 -0800
Subject: [cobalt-users] CacheRaQ2
Ok .. so I need to know if there is any sort of Filter that can be applied
to the Cache/Proxy in this box .. I am being asked to add some sort of
content and or porno filter to this box .. Ideas? ..
Brian Watters
--__--__--
Message: 18
From: "Rodolfo J. Paiz \(E-mail\)" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] Can anyone recommend a good storefront/ecommerce
package?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:06:40 -0600
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Currently, I'm looking at WebCatalog (SmithMicro), Miva
> Merchant, Kurrant Storesense and a small handfull of others.
Have you (or has anyone) looked at MiniVend? They've almost got me
convinced, but I want to be careful what I put in for my customers...
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--__--__--
Message: 19
From: "Rodolfo J. Paiz \(E-mail\)" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] Get me off the ORBS list
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:31:22 -0600
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Spam is annoying, but honestly, it's not that big a deal.
> >
>
> I agree completely, why does everybody seem to be allergic to
> their delete key? I delete hundreds of email messages a day (yes,
> even when I am using a dial up account from out of town), and
> it's just not that big of a deal.
Again, JC, it's a question of scale and personal way of seeing things. You
don't mind deleting hundreds of messages a day; that's OK. Obviously (and I
don't mean any criticism!) your time is not an extremely valuable commodity
to you, so the time you spend on this is not "expensive." (I say this
because we all have only 24 hours per day... I just value each slice of it
more than you do... which isn't right or wrong, it's just personal.)
I *really* mind the time, since I only get about 4-5 hours of sleep a day,
and I want 8. But I won't take those other 3 hours from my family, and I
don't want to take them from useful work. Reducing the amount of time I
spend on things I find undesirable, unproductive, and displeasing is the
first and best source of time for me.
As for my network, anyone who's read my posts around here knows I run a
*very* small network. When you're on a T3, you couldn't care less about some
text traffic, and that's OK. But when your single biggest monthly expense is
a measly 256 Kbps of real bandwidth, spam is *EXPENSIVE*.
My dial-up account from out of town is usually out-of-country as well, and
costs me on average $7.00 per hour. Again, I own my own business; I'm 28
years old; I'm recently married; and every $7.00 I save is money into my
investments and business.
We each have our lives and ideas, and it's a grievous mistake to assume that
because something applies to you, that it applies to others as well.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--__--__--
Message: 20
From: "Carrie Bartkowiak" <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cobalt-users] All folders visable on whole server
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:25:15 -0500
Reply-To: cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
||>> Could someone just rename the script something like
||>'notadminpro.cgi' and
||>> still run it?
||>
||>Yes, and I had mentioned that in a previous email. However,
||>taken directly
||>from adminpro.cgi:
||>
||>#
||># DO NOT change the name of this script as its performance will
||># be adversely affected. However, you may change the extension
||># to ".pl" if ".cgi" is not supported by your server.
I just caught on to this thread, it's one of the ones that was going on
while my server was puking and I hadn't yet subscribed with my home addy.
I have to tell you, I've changed adminpro's name many times with no adverse
effects whatsoever.
Also, I have installed this for a couple of my clients, but I've hacked it
up a bit... I split the script into two parts. One goes in the user's web
directory in a password protected folder, and the main 'beef' of the script
that says "this is where you're allowed to look and mess with files" goes
into a nice system folder that they can't normally access anyway.
Part one of the script calls part two to find out where it's allowed to
look, then it goes on its merry way. The users can *only* see and change
files in their own domain.
However, this won't stop someone from uploading the script themselves and
doing damage. Should that happen, I'd be mightily pissed... but there's
really nothing we can do about it before it happens.
One thing that Craig could do to discourage would-be drive-by 'hackers' (who
would use this script, anyway), is to charge a $50 fee for it before you
download it. *Most* people will go looking elsewhere. The ones you'd have to
worry about are the ones who would write their own hacking scripts, anyway.
Methinks and hopes that the ones who would use this script would just be
curious and want to read stuff.
As far as reading stuff, I've been on plenty of servers where I could move
right up through the ftp tree until I was at the very root of the server
(/), and I could download stuff and read it. Just couldn't upload anything
or make directories, etc. (Yes, I tried, out of curiosity, not
maliciousness.)
Carrie Bartkowiak
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
cobalt-users mailing list
cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
End of cobalt-users Digest