Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'fusebox'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Breadcrumbs in Fusebox 4/5

    - by Jordan Reiter
    I'm wondering if anyone has come up with a clean way to generate a breadcrumbs trail in Fusebox. Specifically, is there a way of keeping track of "where you are" and having that somehow generate the breadcrumbs for you? So, for example, if you're executing /index.cfm?fuseaction=Widgets.ViewWidget&widget=1 and the circuit structure is something like /foo/bar/widgets/ then somehow the system automatically creates an array like: [ { title: 'Foo', url: '#self#?fuseaction=Foo.Main' }, { title: 'Bar', url: '#self#?fuseaction=Bar.Main' }, { title: 'Widgets', url: '#self#?fuseaction=Widgets.Main' }, { title: 'Awesome Widget', url: '' } ] Which can then be rendered as Foo Bar Widgets Awesome Widget Right now it seems the only way to really do this is to create the structure for each fuseaction in a fuse of some kind (either the display fuse or a fuse dedicated to creating the crumbtrail).

    Read the article

  • ubuntu's average load never below "0.00 0.01 0.05"

    - by Karma Fusebox
    I have several ubuntu 12.04 VMs running on a ubuntu 12.04 KVM host. Those of the virtual machines that are totally idle with no services (except syslog and the other "small" standard stuff of a fresh installation) show a constant load of "0.00 0.01 0.05" in top/htop as average 1/5/15. When there are "real" applications running, the load averages behave perfectly normal but they never fall below the mentioned values. While this doesn't affect performance at all and could easily be ignored, it screws up the monitoring graphs in a very annoying way: (Notice how load15 behaves nicely if 0.05 for a short time in the right half of the pic) Unfortunately I don't know what diagnostic outputs might be helpful for you, so here's some default stuff: # top top - 16:31:01 up 1:05, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05 Tasks: 62 total, 1 running, 61 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.2%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.2%id, 0.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 1019464k total, 73452k used, 946012k free, 6140k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 22504k cached . # free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 995 72 923 0 6 21 -/+ buffers/cache: 43 951 Swap: 0 0 0 . # iostat -x /dev/vda Linux 3.2.0-32-virtual (vm3) 11/15/2012 _x86_64_ (2 CPU) avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 0.25 0.00 0.65 0.20 0.24 98.66 Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rkB/s wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util vda 0.14 0.12 0.51 0.22 6.74 1.46 22.50 0.02 23.26 20.64 29.30 7.63 0.56 Need something else? Has anyone ever seen this behavior? Might this be a bug in kvm/ubuntu/kernel 3.x in the end? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Is this iptables NAT exploitable from the external side?

    - by Karma Fusebox
    Could you please have a short look on this simple iptables/NAT-Setup, I believe it has a fairly serious security issue (due to being too simple). On this network there is one internet-connected machine (running Debian Squeeze/2.6.32-5 with iptables 1.4.8) acting as NAT/Gateway for the handful of clients in 192.168/24. The machine has two NICs: eth0: internet-faced eth1: LAN-faced, 192.168.0.1, the default GW for 192.168/24 Routing table is two-NICs-default without manual changes: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 (externalNet) 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 (externalGW) 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 The NAT is then enabled only and merely by these actions, there are no more iptables rules: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # (all iptables policies are ACCEPT) This does the job, but I miss several things here which I believe could be a security issue: there is no restriction about allowed source interfaces or source networks at all there is no firewalling part such as: (set policies to DROP) /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT And thus, the questions of my sleepless nights are: Is this NAT-service available to anyone in the world who sets this machine as his default gateway? I'd say yes it is, because there is nothing indicating that an incoming external connection (via eth0) should be handled any different than an incoming internal connection (via eth1) as long as the output-interface is eth0 - and routing-wise that holds true for both external und internal clients that want to access the internet. So if I am right, anyone could use this machine as open proxy by having his packets NATted here. So please tell me if that's right or why it is not. As a "hotfix" I have added a "-s 192.168.0.0/24" option to the NAT-starting command. I would like to know if not using this option was indeed a security issue or just irrelevant thanks to some mechanism I am not aware of. As the policies are all ACCEPT, there is currently no restriction on forwarding eth1 to eth0 (internal to external). But what are the effective implications of currently NOT having the restriction that only RELATED and ESTABLISHED states are forwarded from eth0 to eth1 (external to internal)? In other words, should I rather change the policies to DROP and apply the two "firewalling" rules I mentioned above or is the lack of them not affecting security? Thanks for clarification!

    Read the article

1