|
Fangs404 posted:Signed up for Linode and migrated my MediaTemple site there today. I haven't done much web administration stuff under Linux before, but it was really easy and straightforward thanks to Linode's amazing documentation. I just got the base 512mb plan, and it's much faster than MT was. The flexibility of a VPS is awesome. If you enter your FTP info, it will still install the plugin tho.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Biowarfare posted:get suphp working or something, iirc Hey, this might be what I need. Thanks. Bob Morales posted:Don't 'chmod 777' and the whole reason you want to use sftp over ftp is because it's secure. I think you misunderstood my problem. eightysixed posted:If you enter your FTP info, it will still install the plugin tho. I don't actually have an FTP server running, and if possible, I'd like to keep it that way. I do all my file transfers over SSH (SFTP).
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Hey, this might be what I need. Thanks. If that ends up being the case, post back if you would. I have the same issue with a website at work, and I just haven't had the time yet to look into what is needed to get automatic updates working.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:If that ends up being the case, post back if you would. I have the same issue with a website at work, and I just haven't had the time yet to look into what is needed to get automatic updates working. It is indeed working. Documentation on how to setup suphp sucks, but http://www.pc-freak.net/blog/installing-suphp-on-debian-lenny-5-04-with-apache-2-2-9-2/ helped a lot. If you get an internal server error, know that you need to play around with the docroot and check_vhost_docroot settings in suphp.conf. [edit] I read that suphp runs about 25% slower than mod_php, so I decided to try to find a better solution without using suphp. Here's what I found: WordPress has some suggestions for permissions. The important part is this: quote:All files should be owned by your user account on your web server, and should be writable by your username. Files should never be owned by the webserver process itself (sometimes this is www, or apache, or nobody). This alone, at least for me, wasn't quite enough to do the trick. What I discovered is that apparently WordPress checks to see if you are the user trying to write the files. Because the web user (in my case, www-data) is not the same as the owner of the files, it fails. It fails even if permissions are 777. The way to get beyond this is to add this line to your wp-config.php: php:<?
define('FS_METHOD', 'direct');?>code:code:code:code:[edit2] Just wrote about this in much more detail on my site. This should clarify things. http://www.fangsoft.net/?p=227 Fangs404 fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
If your filesystem supports it you could use acl's to give access to your www user
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 09:29
|
|
|
So Google decided to let me in to their dev program for 100GB/month. I don't know why, since I'm not one?Google posted:Thanks for your interest in Google Storage for Developers, and welcome to our preview! During the preview period, you will be able to store 100GiB of data monthly at no charge. Billing information is still required, however, since network requests will incur charges at the published rates Anyways, even though it says that it's not transferable, I'll try and give it to a serious goon that wants it if I can. I guess PM me? Edit: Already had 1 goon PM me. I'll let you each of you know if xyz doesn't pan out. EconOutlines fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:It is indeed working. Documentation on how to setup suphp sucks, but http://www.pc-freak.net/blog/installing-suphp-on-debian-lenny-5-04-with-apache-2-2-9-2/ helped a lot. If you get an internal server error, know that you need to play around with the docroot and check_vhost_docroot settings in suphp.conf. The point of suphp is that you can isolate users to their sites, and they can only read/write their own files. If you chown it to the user that the web server uses like that then if you have another site and an exploit is able to put any kind of php code on the system it will be able to also modify those files. Its a big help on an environment like cpanel where you are giving accounts to other people and running various websites with code packages you don't have control over. If someone leaves their Joomla out of date or runs crappy scripts that require modifying files a lot it keeps it from spreading elsewhere and getting code injected into all your sites (and thus getting flagged by google). Another option: add mod_security and set that up with a good ruleset. That will protect the heck out of your site, even if the code stinks and keeps a log. If you want wordpress performance you run a caching plugin (w3 total cache is my favorite) and combine it with memcache and/or the php apc module.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
JHVH-1 posted:The point of suphp is that you can isolate users to their sites, and they can only read/write their own files. If you chown it to the user that the web server uses like that then if you have another site and an exploit is able to put any kind of php code on the system it will be able to also modify those files. Its a big help on an environment like cpanel where you are giving accounts to other people and running various websites with code packages you don't have control over. If someone leaves their Joomla out of date or runs crappy scripts that require modifying files a lot it keeps it from spreading elsewhere and getting code injected into all your sites (and thus getting flagged by google). I understand what suphp does. I think you misunderstood my point. I expressly state that chowning is a very bad solution (read my blog entry). The solution I came up with (selectively chgrping just a few directories) is better than chowning everything (more secure) and better than suphp (much faster). Most php scripts I use don't actually modify files/directories. They simply edit a database. My WP blog is the exception to that. I don't want/need suphp for every php site I run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
I'm looking for some VPS suggestions, not really familiar with VPS-providers: We are looking at setting up external tools(think SmokePing ect) to monitor our European services. I want to do this from within Europe and from the US, being able to do this from the same VPS-provider would be a nice bonus. Resource and bandwidth usage will be low, so network stability is my main concern. Because I'm doing latency monitoring network reliability is important, I guess going for the lowest price will get me congestion and poor internet transit.. Being able to setup some extra shell accounts would also be nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:I understand what suphp does. I think you misunderstood my point. I expressly state that chowning is a very bad solution (read my blog entry). The solution I came up with (selectively chgrping just a few directories) is better than chowning everything (more secure) and better than suphp (much faster). Probably a bad idea, but 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
nex posted:I'm looking for some VPS suggestions, not really familiar with VPS-providers: The answer here sounds like Linode They have datacenters in London and the US, I'm pretty sure you can clone VPSs across any of their datacenters, they are completely stable (no downtime at all in the 6 months I've been with them, though I think one of their servers might have gone out a couple months ago, don't remember if that was Linode or someone else; and offer cheap backups services, but they rarely have ever had outages from what I hear). $20/mo per VPS for the 512MB Ram/16g disk/ 200g b/w package
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
nex posted:I'm looking for some VPS suggestions, not really familiar with VPS-providers: Are providers able to solicit here? You can spend  for a weeks worth of testing with us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
You are with Voxel, correct? Amsterdam, NY and Shanghai seems pretty sweet as the first two are the main points for our traffic. May I ask you is your main trans-atlantic provider? Level 3? I might take you up on that offer soon.  Linode seems like a good alternative as well, judging from reviews online. I don't really familiar with hourly billing on these services, how does it work? I guess a server running some kind of service would use CPU all the time, why would hourly that be a better choice than just a flat fee per month?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:I understand what suphp does. I think you misunderstood my point. I expressly state that chowning is a very bad solution (read my blog entry). The solution I came up with (selectively chgrping just a few directories) is better than chowning everything (more secure) and better than suphp (much faster). Just wanted to point out that while its more secure there still would exist a problem if there was a hole in the code somewhere. A lot of worms will use access to a directory to place a file in it, run a script and then you end up with all kinds of junk from it scanning the system, placing stuff in places like /tmp/ etc. Using mod_security fights against it, but if you are just doing one WP blog and keep it up to date I wouldn't worry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
nex posted:You are with Voxel, correct? Yes, I'm a sysadmin @ voxel.net . I was suggesting hourly so you can test it out and only lose $10 or less if you find yourself not satisfied. I believe Telia and Level3 are the providers we use in Europe/Asia. You can poke someone from sales via the website if you need any more direct responses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Does anybody know a good, simple image-upload script I can drop on my server for my own use? So I don't have to use SFTP then SSH in to move the file. I tried to look for a PHP script to do this a month or so back but literally every script I found either had a current exploit available, or its previous version was vulnerable and its current version was a year+ old, or it was an unnamed script that I assumed was exploitable. So I guess I'd prefer Python or Perl or something. I don't care about auth, I'll have lighttpd handle it. nex posted:Resource and bandwidth usage will be low, so network stability is my main concern. lowendbox may also be useful. If an offer is cheap but the resources given are also very limited, they're probably not overselling anywhere near as bad as, say, Santrex. (who suck) Of course, the $20+/mo providers are more likely to provide solid service. I prefer to spend time looking for a cheap-but-reliable provider (by trying multiple), but you might prefer to just go with a known-good provider. Malloc Voidstar fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Mar 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
http://r-1.ch/img-hosting-script.tar.gz ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
loving Christ, having a VPS is loving amazing. It's awesome to just be able to install whatever the gently caress I need to get poo poo going. I don't know how I ever lived with shared hosting before. And it's loving fast, too (well, Linode is, at least). gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 10:04
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:loving Christ, having a VPS is loving amazing. It's awesome to just be able to install whatever the gently caress I need to get poo poo going. I don't know how I ever lived with shared hosting before. And it's loving fast, too (well, Linode is, at least). Agreed. I keep a VPS around because while 90% of the time it's not doing anything, whatever it's $5 and is handy once in a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
less than three posted:Agreed. I keep a VPS around because while 90% of the time it's not doing anything, whatever it's $5 and is handy once in a while. I'm too lazy to get a website built on mine, so right now I ssh into it to program C homework on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
I use mine for IRC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
SSL query: I've bought my mum an iPad, and she uses an email address I gave her on my VPS. Her ISP is a massive pain in the rear end and have (for the ten years she's used them) blocked SMTP:25. I've got an iPhone myself, and found that if I connect on SSL I can send and receive emails, but as of a few updates ago it bitches at me constantly because I don't have a cert. So, before I give her a tablet that won't shut up about a connection I'm using purely to get around a dumb port block I thought I'd use the free PositiveSSL cert I had from a domain registration years ago. I think I've hosed up though. I set up the CSR for mydomain.com and have confirmed everything on both sides, and entered the key that Comodo emailed me into cPanel and it's accepted it fine. However, my email clients talk to server.mydomain.com and this doesn't seem to be seeing the cert. I've changed my clients to connect to just plain mydomain.com, but they time out. Did I specifically need to put server.mydomain.com in the forms? As it was a freebie, there's no way of modification now it seems. If I've done something irreversible, does anyone know a service I can use to generate a cert just for email that costs a few bucks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Is mydomain.com and server.mydomain.com the same IP address? If so, it shouldn't be timing out. You might have a firewall issue. Another way to get around ISPs blocking port 25 is by enabling the submission port (587). Make sure it is set up with the same rules as port 25 and you can use that instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
Both domain and subdomain are on the same IP. I use WHM/cPanel, so there's no frontend for iptables by default but I did a list and here are the relevant parts: Chain acctboth (2 references) target prot opt source destination tcp -- server.mydomain.com anywhere tcp dpt:http tcp -- anywhere server.mydomain.com tcp spt:http tcp -- server.mydomain.com anywhere tcp dpt:smtp tcp -- anywhere server.mydomain.com tcp spt:smtp tcp -- server.mydomain.com anywhere tcp dpt:pop3 tcp -- anywhere server.mydomain.com tcp spt:pop3 icmp -- server.mydomain.com anywhere icmp -- anywhere server.mydomain.com tcp -- server.mydomain.com anywhere tcp -- anywhere server.mydomain.com udp -- server.mydomain.com anywhere udp -- anywhere server.mydomain.com all -- server.mydomain.com anywhere all -- anywhere server.mydomain.com I don't know much about iptables (other than I had a $10/mo box once, did something with iptables and blocked everything that wasn't local out of it for a few hours) but nothing stands out to me as being a problem? I looked at the SSL part of WHM however, and there is a cert there for server.mydomain.com as well (I added my new cert, but this has made no difference). I don't know where it came from, maybe I added it years ago but it's not signed by anyone. I'm slightly hesitant to remove it, in case it kills email access at my mums place until I get there on Saturday. I also noticed if I go to the SSL version of WHM by clicking the secure link at the top, it also gives me the old cert.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 11:23
|
|
|
.
ichorclaw fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Found the section, looks like that's going to be what I need to change as the dates match up with what I'm seeing when I try to send securely. Much appreciated, fingers crossed as if I can get this working in the next 48 hours it'll be a huge relief!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
If you install CSF it integrates with cPanel and lets you block/whitelist addresses from WHM and do other stuff like rate limiting, brute force intrusion detection etc: http://www.configserver.com/cp/csf.html Sometimes you have to tweak it to fit your needs but overall it works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Got a question regarding SSL in Apache 2.2. I've got it working just fine, but I'm having an issue that I can't figure out. So I have several sites I'm running all on the same IP. I have VirtualHosts setup for them all, and everything's working just fine. I want one of these VirtualHosts to have SSL enabled, and I want it explicitly disabled for the other sites (basically, an error message should pop up). When I just do a simple SSLEnable on that one VirtualHost, though, all of the sites attempt to use that one VirtualHost's cert and allow SSL. How can I fix this? If this doesn't make sense or you need more info to diagnose, lemme know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2011 08:52
|
|
|
You can set your VirtualHost entries like: <VirtualHost *:80> </VirtualHost> and then <VirtualHost 1.2.3.4:443> </VirtualHost> for the SSL host. The other hosts will still answer on 443 because SSL binds to the IP address (and they'll have an invalid certificate warning), but it should load the default virtualhost (first virtualhost apache finds in the configs). If you create a virtualhost entry at the top of your list like: <VirtualHost *:443> ServerName 1.2.3.4:80 </VirtualHost> It should load that one since the ServerName doesn't match any valid *:443 vhosts, and you can point it to an error page if you want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Ok guys, really basic question, don't laugh  Gf wants a site to advertise her make-up products on. It's not an online store, all it needs to be is probably a single big rear end picture with all of the products/prices on it and a link to her facebook company page. Maybe (big maybe) a contact form. She also wants a custom email account/domain to use as main contact for this business. Given that I know nothing about hosting and email domains for that matter, what would be the most affordable and simplest solution out there for her needs? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:Ok guys, really basic question, don't laugh Try goon run Lithium Hosting: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2818800 starts at $1/mo for goons, that plan should be good enough for her needs. Do the emails through google apps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
http://www.hostable.com Right now they are doing shared, unlimited hosting for a one-time verification fee of .99c for 3 years. It would likely be very slow due to the amount of people signing up, but still thats a pretty good deal to just have somewhere to mess around on. http://www.hostable.com/why-is-it-Free.aspx e: Forgot to add, after 3 years they will start charging you automatically, so do be careful to remember to cancel when you are finished. Coca-Cola yum! fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Mar 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
optikalus posted:You can set your VirtualHost entries like: Thanks man. What I wound up doing was just creating a cert for all the sites I run using a wildcard CN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
Coca-Cola yum! posted:http://www.hostable.com Hostable charges a non-refundable set up fee as well as its periodic service fee which in some cases may be refundable as further set forth elsewhere herein. Hostable charges an Annual Domain/DNS Maintenance Fee of $.17 per month per domain name, a Universal Internet Service (IPv6) Recovery Fee of $.07 per month per domain for Domain Only accounts and $.34 per month per domain for all other accounts, and a Wind Energy Surcharge of $.57 per month for all accounts except Domain Only accounts. Hostable may also charge you for Domain service fees and specifically reserves the right to institute additional charges upon notice to you. Hostable reserves the right to alter, change, amend or delete charges at its sole discretion. Hostable further reserves the right to institute new services and charge fees in association with the provision of such new services as it deems appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:Hostable charges a non-refundable set up fee as well as its periodic service fee which in some cases may be refundable as further set forth elsewhere herein. Hostable charges an Annual Domain/DNS Maintenance Fee of $.17 per month per domain name, a Universal Internet Service (IPv6) Recovery Fee of $.07 per month per domain for Domain Only accounts and $.34 per month per domain for all other accounts, and a Wind Energy Surcharge of $.57 per month for all accounts except Domain Only accounts. Hostable may also charge you for Domain service fees and specifically reserves the right to institute additional charges upon notice to you. Hostable reserves the right to alter, change, amend or delete charges at its sole discretion. Hostable further reserves the right to institute new services and charge fees in association with the provision of such new services as it deems appropriate. Which means it's $0.15 cheaper to go with Lithium Hosting. I'm surprised goons are recommending things like this without reading the fine print. That's still just under $14 per year, which is a long way from $.03 per year, which the ad stats 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
eightysixed posted:Which means it's $0.15 cheaper to go with Lithium Hosting. I'm surprised goons are recommending things like this without reading the fine print. That's still just under $14 per year, which is a long way from $.03 per year, which the ad stats (c) Hostable reserves the right to charge an early termination fee of $35. 5.02 The initial term shall be as set forth in the Order Form (the "Initial Term"). The Initial Term shall begin upon commencement of the services to Customer. After the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew. Additionally, up to sixty days or two months prior to the initial term ending, customer acknowledges, agrees and authorizes Hostable to automatically bill and/or charge their credit card for successive terms of equal length as the initial term, unless terminated or cancelled by either party as provided in this section. After the Initial Term, this Agreement shall automatically renew at the current listed fee. A list of current fees are available on the Hostable website and the rest of the fees in this Agreement. And the initial term is 3 years, so the autocharge will be for 3 years 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
Just in response to the posts above, You can use a prepaid, disposable credit card (such as a 3v card in Ireland) with only $1 on it. This will basically stop them from charging you any extras as you wont have the money on the card. I wouldn't advise any other method though, should have stated that in the post, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Yakattak posted:Try goon run Lithium Hosting: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2818800 starts at $1/mo for goons, that plan should be good enough for her needs. Do the emails through google apps. By the looks of it, I'd be 1/mo for basic shared hosting, 13 bucks for a domain and like 50 bucks a year for google apps, right? DreadCthulhu fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Mar 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:By the looks of it, I'd be 1/mo for basic shared hosting, 13 bucks for a domain and like 50 bucks a year for google apps, right? You only pay once for it to be setup, so $10. But that's a hilarious rip off, all it takes to use Google Apps for domains is a couple DNS records...
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:By the looks of it, I'd be 1/mo for basic shared hosting, 13 bucks for a domain and like 50 bucks a year for google apps, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2011 22:30
|
|