Search Results

Search found 5203 results on 209 pages for 'rules of thumb'.

Page 163/209 | < Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >

• Revamping an old and unstable IT-solution for a customer?

  - by cmbrnt

  I've been given the cumbersome task to totally redo the IT-infrastructure for a customer's office. They are currently running Windows XP all over, with one computer acting as a file server with no control over which users have access to which files, and so on. To top it off, this file server also functions as a workstation, which means it gets rebooted every time the user notices some sluggish behavior or experiences problems with flash games. To say the least, this isn't working for them. Now - I've got a very slim budget, but I need to set up a new server, and I wish to run Windows Server 2008 on it. I also need the ability to access the network remotely via VPN. Would it be a good idea to install VMware ESXi 4.1 onto the new server, and then run Windows Server 2008 as well as a separate Debian install for openvpn on it? I don't like the Domain Controller for the future AD to also run a VPN-server, because of stability issues when something goes to hell with either of them. There will be no redundancy though. However, I'm not sure if there is something to gain by installing a VPN solution on the Windows Server itself, when it comes to accessing file shares on the network via VPN. I don't know how to enable users logging in via the VPN to access the remote files, since they will be accessing the network from their own home computers (which is indeed a really bad idea, but this is what I've got to work with). They won't be logged in to the windows Domain, but rather their home workgroups. I need to be able to grant access to files in certain directories based on the logged in AD-user, but every computer won't necessarily be configured to log into the domain. I'm not sure how to explain this in a good way, but I'd be happy to clarify if somethings not clear. Any help would be great, because I've got a feeling that I can't do this without introducing a bunch of costly new rules when it comes to their IT-solution. I'd rather leave that untouched and go on my merry way to the next assignment.

  Read the article

• trouble executing php scripts with nginx

  - by lovesh

  My nginx config looks like this server { listen 80; server_name localhost; location / { root /var/www; index index.php index.html; autoindex on; } location /folder1 { root /var/www/folder1; index index.php index.html index.htm; try_files $uri $uri/ index.php?$query_string; } location /folder2 { root /var/www/folder2; index index.php index.html index.htm; try_files $uri $uri/ index.php?$query_string; } location ~ \.php$ { fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_index index.php; include fastcgi_params; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; } } The problem with the above setup is that i am not able to execute php files. Now as per my understanding of nginx config rules, when i am in my webroot(/) which is /var/www the value of $document_root becomes /var/www so when i request for localhost/hi.php the fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME becomes /var/www/hi.php and that is the actual path of the php script. Similarly when i request for localhost/folder1/hi.php the $document_root becomes /var/www/folder1 because this is specified as the root in folder1's location block so again the fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME becomes /var/www/folder1/hi.php. But because the above configuration does not work so there is something wrong with my understanding. Please help?

  Read the article

• securing communication between 2 Linux servers on local network for ports only they need access to

  - by gkdsp

  I have two Linux servers connected to each other via a cross-connect cable, forming a local network. One of the servers presents a DMZ for the other server (e.g. database server) that must be very secure. I'm restricting this question to communication between the two servers for ports that only need to be available to these servers (and no one else). Thus, communication between the two servers can be established by: (1) opening the required port(s) on both servers, and authenticating according to the applications' rules. (2) disabling IP Tables associated with the NIC cards the cross-connect cable is attached to (on both servers). Which method is more secure? In the first case, the needed ports are open to the external world, but protected by user name and password. In the second case, none of the needed ports are open to the outside world, but since the IP Tables are disabled for the NIC cards associated with the cross-connect cables, essentially all of the ports may be considered to be "open" between the two servers (and so if the server creating the DMZ is compromized, the hacker on the DMZ server could view all ports open using the cross-connect cable). Any conventional wisdom how to make the communication secure between two servers for ports only these servers need access to?

  Read the article

• Read non-blocking from multiple fifos in parallel

  - by Ole Tange

  I sometimes sit with a bunch of output fifos from programs that run in parallel. I would like to merge these fifos. The naïve solution is: cat fifo* > output But this requires the first fifo to complete before reading the first byte from the second fifo, and this will block the parallel running programs. Another way is: (cat fifo1 & cat fifo2 & ... ) > output But this may mix the output thus getting half-lines in output. When reading from multiple fifos, there must be some rules for merging the files. Typically doing it on a line by line basis is enough for me, so I am looking for something that does: parallel_non_blocking_cat fifo* > output which will read from all fifos in parallel and merge the output on with a full line at a time. I can see it is not hard to write that program. All you need to do is: open all fifos do a blocking select on all of them read nonblocking from the fifo which has data into the buffer for that fifo if the buffer contains a full line (or record) then print out the line if all fifos are closed/eof: exit goto 2 So my question is not: can it be done? My question is: Is it done already and can I just install a tool that does this?

  Read the article

• Route outbound connections from local network through VPN

  - by Sharkos

  I have a server A running OpenVPN, an OpenVPN client B (a rooted Android phone as it happens) and a third party C (a laptop, tablet etc.) tethered to B. B can use the VPN to access the internet via A; C can use the tethered connection WITHOUT the VPN to access the internet via B. However, with the VPN on B active, I cannot load information from the internet on C. A appears to log similar traffic inbound and outbound when B or C attempt to load a webpage, say, but the VPN on device B reports no inbound traffic when the connection originated from C. Where should I look for packets being dropped, and what ip rules should I use to make sure they are passed back through the VPN and into the local network B <- C? (I'll obviously post whatever further information is needed.) Further info Without VPN: root@android:/ # ip route default via [B's External Gateway] dev rmnet0 [B's External Subnet] dev rmnet0 proto kernel scope link src [B's External IP] [B's External Gateway] dev rmnet0 scope link 192.168.43.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.43.1 With VPN: root@android:/ # ip route 0.0.0.0/1 dev tun0 scope link default via [B's External Gateway] dev rmnet0 [B's External Subnet] dev rmnet0 proto kernel scope link src [B's External IP] [B's External Gateway] dev rmnet0 scope link [External address of A] dev tun0 scope link 128.0.0.0/1 dev tun0 scope link 172.16.0.0/24 dev tun0 scope link 172.16.0.8/30 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.0.10 192.168.43.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.43.1 192.168.168.0/24 dev tun0 scope link

  Read the article

• Follow through - How to setup equivalent USVIDEO.ORG DNS-Proxy on Linux

  - by DNSDC

  I'm quite keen to setup similar service (but FREE) and seems you know how to do this. "you need to run your own private dns with artificial records for example pandora.com you also need a real dns to fall back on. now that all requests for these sites are going to your US located box you can open up port 80 on squid and listen for the traffic. your cache_peer settings should allow you to map each domain to their real ip. The trafic now flows initially from your US located box to the service but then the server responds it responds directly to the host. no magic here. I won't share the fine details as it probably best serves all to not over exploit this." Did you mean we need to 1. Setup Forward-only DNS on a US-based server/ip? 2. Setup cache_peer and cache_peer_domain in Squid, I got this. 3. Any iptables rule, prerouting, postrouting rules needed to accomplish this? Appreciate your expert advice. Cheers, Don

  Read the article

• IPTABLES syntax help to forward Remote Desktop requests to a VM [CentOS host]

  - by NVRAM

  I've a VM running MSWindows XP hosted on my CentOS 5.4 machine. I can rdesktop into it from the hosting machine and work just fine using the private ddress (192.168.122.65), but I now need to allow Remote Desktop access from other computers (not just the machine hosting the VM). [Edit] I only need to allow access for a day or so, so don't want to add a NIC (for XP activation reasons). Could someone help me with the iptables syntax? The VM is on a private/virtual network: 192.168.122.65 and my CentOS machine is on a physical network, at 10.1.3.38 (and 192.168.122.1 as the GW for the virtual net). I found this question, but none of the answers seemed to work and I'm a bit timid at blindly trying variations. My FORWARD rules are as listed. Thanks in advance. # iptables -L FORWARD Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere 192.168.122.0/24 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 192.168.122.0/24 anywhere ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere [Edit] If I do play "blindly" is there a simple way to reset the settings on CentOS (a la service network restart)?

  Read the article

• Google Apps routing to different servers, depending on domain

  - by Philip

  We are investigating Google Apps for Education for our group of schools. Currently, each school uses their own Exchange (2003) server. Each school has its own domain which I have added to Google Apps as additional domains. I would like to start transitioning certain staff and some new pupils over to Google Apps to start testing. In this interim phase, I need mail to be routed through Google Apps and then, if no appropriate mail box is found, route on to the individual schools depending on the recipient. I do know that it is possible to route mail that does not have an appropriate Google Apps mail account to a single server - under "Settings / E-mail Settings / General Settings / Routing / E-mail routing". This works well for a single organisation where all the extra mail is destined for one place. I do know that it is possible to set up Routes, under "Settings / E-mail Settings / Hosts" and then use rules, found under "Settigns / E-mail Settings / General Settings / Routing / Receiving Routing". I can then filter based on e-mail domain and forward on to the necessary server. My problem with this, as I understand it, is that it ignores the users that have Google Apps accounts set up and sends all mail to the Exchange server. Are there any solutions for this predicament? Many thanks!

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA 5505 network route for static IP hosts

  - by TheCapn

  I've configured my internal VLAN using the most basic settings where ports 1-7 are assigned from a pool of addresses in the range 192.168.15.5 - 192.168.15.36. These hosts are given access to the internet and it works great. What I'm trying to set up now is allowing users who are connected to the device and specify their IP (say I connect and request 192.168.15.45) are given internet access and can still work alongside DHCP hosts. Those with a DHCP assigned address are blocked from the internet. Mostly the issue resides in that I am very new to working with the device. I feel that the solution is easy but I'm not looking in the right spots and don't have the correct terminology down to google it. Do I need to define access control lists? Group policies? a new VLAN? The rules that are set up seem to be specific to the entire /24 subnet but when I request a static IP outside of the DHCP range I get blocked from other hosts and the internet.

  Read the article

• Troubleshoot port forwarding. Could it be ISP blocking incoming connections?

  - by Gravy

  Had a new Axis IP camera delivered yesterday. Plugged into Cisco E2400 Wireless Router but having problems. Example topology: WAN IP: 10.10.10.10 (example) Cisco Router: 192.168.1.1 Axis Camera: 192.168.1.10:80 Port forwarding rules set up on router External Port: 999 Internal Port: 80 Protocol: TCP & UDP Device IP: 192.168.1.10:80 Enabled: True Trying to connect from within the lan to 192.168.1.1:80 from within browser - Works properly. Trying to connect from within the lan to 10:10:10:10:999 from within browser - Works properly. Trying to connect from outside the LAN (e.g. via 3g or another isp) to 10:10:10:10:999 from within browser - Doesnt work. I get the following errors from different machines / browsers: Safari could not open the page because the server stopped responding (IOS) The server at xx.xx.xx.xx is taking too long to respond. (firefox) This problem is not just for the Axis camera. I am also having similar problems connecting to my NAS drive. After using a web based port scanning tool, it appears as though port 999 is closed. Not certain why when I have set up port forwarding within the router. Any troubleshooting suggestions to help me determine whether the problem is with my Cisco settings / firewall or whether it could be my ISP blocking incoming connection requests? Many thanks

  Read the article

• iptables port redirection on Ubuntu

  - by Xi.

  I have an apache server running on 8100. When open http://localhost:8100 in browser we will see the site running correctly. Now I would like to direct all request on 80 to 8100 so that the site can be accessed without the port number. I am not familiar with iptables so I searched for solutions online. This is one of the methods that I have tried: user@ubuntu:~$ sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT user@ubuntu:~$ sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 8100 -j ACCEPT user@ubuntu:~$ sudo iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8100 It's not working. The site works on 8100 but it's not on 80. If print out the rules using "iptables -t nat -L -n -v", this is what I see: user@ubuntu:~$ sudo iptables -t nat -L -n -v Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 14 packets, 2142 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 REDIRECT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 redir ports 8100 Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 14 packets, 2142 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 177 packets, 13171 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 177 packets, 13171 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination The OS is a Ubuntu on a VMware. I thought this should be a simple task but I have been working on it for hours without success. :( What am I missing?

  Read the article

• DNAT from localhost (127.0.0.1)

  - by pts

  I'd like to set up a TCP DNAT from 127.0.0.1, port 4242 to 11.22.33.44, port 5353 on Linux 3.x (currently 3.2.52, but I can upgrade if needed). It looks like the simple DNAT rule setup doesn't work, telnet 127.0.0.1 4242 hangs for a minute in Trying 127.0.0.1..., and then it times out. Maybe it's because the kernel is discarding the returning packets (e.g. SYN+ACK), because it considers them Martian. I don't need an explanation why the simple solution doesn't work, I need a solution, even if it's complicated (e.g. it involves creating may rules). I could set up a usual DNAT from another local IP address, outside the 127.0.0.0/8 network, but now I need 127.0.0.1 as the destination address. I know that I can set up a user-level port forwarding process, but now I need a solution which can be set up using iptables and doesn't need helper processes. I was googling for this for an hour. It was asked multiple times, but I couldn't find any working solutions. Also there are many questions about DNAT to 127.0.0.1, but I don't need that, I need the opposite.

  Read the article

• Conditional formatting Excel 2007/2010: Highlight the first cell in the row that contains duplicate values?

  - by Nancy Prades

  I have a table with hundreds of columns and rows of data; each row and column have a header. For instance, column headers are ITEM, FILE1, FILE2, FILE3, etc. and row headers are AA, BB, CC, DD, and so on. Under conditional formatting, I used "Highlight Cells Rules" "Equal to", in order to highlight cells that have values equal to the value in another cell. In this case, my formula rule is: Rule: Cell Value = $A$1 Applies to: =$B$3:$G$8 When I input "X" into cell A1, Excel will highlight all of the cells that have a value equal to "X", in this case, the following cells are highlighted: B3, C5, G6, and E8. Here's my problem. The data that I am working with contains more than 100 columns and rows. I want to identify all of the ITEMS (AA, BB, CC, etc.) that contain the duplicate file "X". In order to do this I have to scroll right to left, and up and down. Here's my question. Is there a way to use conditional formatting to add an additional rule? I want to keep the current rule, but I also want the row header to be highlighted if any of the cells in that row contain a value equal to "x". In this case, I want AA, CC, DD, and FF to also be highlighted. Is this possible? I've spent days trying to figure this out - and no luck. Any help would be appreciated! :) Nancy A B C D E F G 1 X 2 ITEM FILE1 FILE2 FILE3 FILE4 FILE5 FILE 6 3 AA x t y u d w 4 BB r y a b k d 5 CC y x f u i g 6 DD t v b d f x 7 EE e w y s l n 8 FF w u n x e m

  Read the article

• IPtables and Remote Desktop with Proxy

  - by Sebastian

  So I setup a windows 2008 web server R2 on VirtualBox. Currently using Bridged Network. I can remote desktop to the machine hosting the VM (10.0.0.183) but cannot remote desktop to the VM itself (10.0.0.195). The remote port on the VM set to 5003. VM setup to accept remote connections (windows side). We also use a proxy for our internet, and I added these rules under NAT. (centOS 5) on our proxy box. -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 3389 -j ACCEPT -A REROUTING -i ppp0 -p tcp --dport 3389 -j REDIRECT --to-port 5003 -A FORWARD -d 10.0.0.195 --dport 5003 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT I've been trying for hours and hours and just cannot get it to work. I also used freedns so that we can use a domain name to connect too this VM over the internet. (the DNS points to our external IP address). If we don't get this right we will have to purchase a PPoE from an ISP to connect to this VM remotely, but I know that there is an alternative route if I can just get this port forwarding right!

  Read the article

• Convert Public Folder to Shared Mailbox

  - by Lilienthal

  Due to a change in company policy, all existing Public Folders (PF) have to be phased out in favour of shared mailboxes. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have any procedures or guidelines for this migration and I can't find much online either. I've already migrated one of our public folders so far as a sort of test case. Because we still use Exchange 2003, we can't create real shared mailboxes as we would in 2007 or 2010 (With New-Mailbox -Shared ... in the Exchange Shell). Instead, I simply created a new account on the AD and assigned it a mailbox. I then set the PF's permissions to read-only to keep it in a consistent state and copied the entire folder to a local PST in Outlook 2010, from which the folder was in turn copied to the new mailbox. Permissions and Folder Visible were set for all users and the migration was successful. While this works, the whole procedure feels very hackish to me and not at all efficient. I'd welcome some input on automating or at least streamlining the process. Additionally, we are unsure of what to do with our mail-enabled Public Folders. Several of these are nested under other PFs, some of which are also mail-enabled. Preserving folder structure is a key requirement and this seems impossible at first glance. I've considered creating dummy accounts for all the email addresses from our mail-enabled PFs and then setting up automated rules to forward messages to a subfolder of the new shared mailboxes, but I am not familiar enough with Exchange to know if this is even possible. Further points of concern are the Calendars and Contact lists in our public folders. I suppose I'll be forced to create new mailboxes for every one of these we have as well, then set up share permissions for their Calendar and Contact items, but would be happy to be proven wrong.

  Read the article

• Combine multiple network interfaces to connect to a dedicated server

  - by Dženis Macanovic

  this is an underpaid employee writing, who's apparently responsible for all the IT stuff in a very small (non-IT) company. Today said company got a bunch of PCs/workstations, a switch, a computer that's supposed to be used as a router, two DSL connections (each 16 MBit/s downstream and 1 MBit/s upstream) and a dedicated server which is hosted and managed professionally by a larger local company with some decent connection speed (1 GBit/s both directions if I'm not mistaken). This is what I've set up (note I'm not making use of the second DSL connection at all)... ETH0 ETH1 [ SWITCH ]---[LINUX DEBIAN ROUTER]---[DSL MODEM 1]---[INTERNET] | | | PC1 | | PC2 | ... ... when my boss asked me, if it was somehow possible to get 32 MBit/s downstream and 2 MBit/s upstream. At that time I replied "no" without thinking too much about it. Now I've just had the following idea... ETH1 ETH0 ETH0 ,---[DSL MODEM 1 (NON-STATIC IP)]---, ,---, ETH0 [ SWITCH ]---[LINUX DEBIAN ROUTER] [INTERNET] [LINUX DEBIAN SERVER]---[INTERNET] | | | '---[ DSL MODEM 2 (STATIC IP) ]---' '---' PC1 | | ETH2 ETH0 PC2 | ... ... but I have absolutely no clue how to implement that. Would that even be possible? What would the masquerading rules look like on the router? What about the server? I didn't find anything on the internet, mainly because I couldn't come up with any good keywords to search for to begin with. English obviously isn't my first language. Thanks in advance for your time!

  Read the article

• OpenVPN / iptables restrict some access

  - by RitonLaJoie

  I want to create an openvpn service on a dedicated server I have, for some friends so that they are able to play online games faster. Is there an easy way to restrict which traffic I allow them with iptables ? It seems iptable is not very easy to maintain and we can easily get kicked out of our own server. Rebooting on a rescue mode every time I would get kicked out because of bad iptable rules would just be a pain. As far as I understand, the tun interface would be providing the access. Which kind of rule in iptables would I have to implement to restrict their access to only 1 ip ? Also, I don't want this vpn to be the default gateway for all the traffic. I guess I should go with the option of pushing a route to the clients so that they connect to the IP of the game server through the VPN and use their regular routes through their ISP for all the other traffic ? As a side not, it seems Openvpn AS is not very robust. Is there some other (commercial is ok) product that would give me the same administration options through a web interface ? Is Webmin the only other solution ? Thanks !

  Read the article

• Strategy to isolate multiple nginx ssl apps with single domain via suburi's?

  - by icpu

  Warning: so far I have only learnt how to use nginx to serve apps with their own domain and server block. But I think its time to dive a little deeper. To mitigate the need for multiple SSL certificates or expensive wildcard certificates I would like to serve multiple apps (e.g. rails apps, php apps, node.js apps) from one nginx server_name. e.g. rooturl/railsapp rooturl/nodejsapp rooturl/phpshop rooturl/phpblog I am unsure on ideal strategy. Some examples I have seen and or thought about: Multiple location rules, this seems to cause conflicts between the individual app config requirements, e.g. differing rewrite and access requirements Isolated apps by backend internal port, is this possible? Each port routing to its own config? So config is isolated and can be bespoke to app requirements. Reverse proxy, I am little ignorant of how this works, is this what I need to research? is this actually 2 above? Help online seems to always proxy to another server e.g apache What is an effective way to isolate config requirements for apps served from a single domain via sub uris?

  Read the article

• How do you get linux to honor setuid directories?

  - by Takigama

  Some time ago while in a conversation in IRC, one user in a channel I was in suggested someone setuid a directory in order for it to inherit the userid on files to solve a problem someone else was having. At the time I spoke up and said "linux doesn't support setuid directories". After that, the person giving the advice showed me a pastebin (http://codepad.org/4In62f13) of his system honouring the setuid permission set on a directory. Just to explain, when i say "linux doesnt support setuid directories" what I mean is that you can go "chmod u+s directory" and it will set the bit on the directory. However, linux (as i understood it) ignores this bit (on directories). Try as I might, I just cant quite replicate that pastebin. Someone suggested to me once that it might be possible to emulate the behaviour with selinux - and playing around with rules, its possible to force a uid on a file, but not from a setuid directory permission (that I can see). Reading around on the internet has been fairly uninformative - most places claim "no, setuid on directories does not work with linux" with the occasional "it can be done under specific circumstances" (such as this: http://arstechnica.com/etc/linux/2003/linux.ars-12032003.html) I dont remember who the original person was, but the original system was a debian 6 system, and the filesystem it was running was xfs mounted with "default,acl". I've tried replicating that, but no luck so far (tried so far with various versions of debian, ubuntu, fedora and centos) Can anyone clue me in on what or how you get a system to honor setuid on a directory?

  Read the article

• How to block access to addresses outside network (internet)

  - by devnull

  I have a homeserver, that is now connected to the internet with an own network device (ath0 - 192.168.1.x). It also has one more network interface (eth0 - 192.168.0.x). Soon I will get a second internet line that will be connected the second network. The server then has both networks with different internet lines available, but i only want it to connect to the internet on the old ath0 interface - not the new eth0 (192.168.0.x). Background of that constellation is that the new line has a volume-limit in traffic - the old hasn't and i need the new line for all mobile devices and laptops. The devices should be able to use the new network to connect to the internet and the server. The homeserver is a debian 6 with iptables and some already written rules for it. I need now a rule to block all outgoing internet access on the eth0 interface - i guess it could be something with --target != 192.168.0.0 but i did not succeed in finding the proper solution. Edit: found the solution: iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -d 192.168.0.0/24 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT With that setting, all traffic that uses the eth0 interface is only allowed if the destination is inside the network 192.168.0.x - all other traffic is denied .

  Read the article

• htaccess rewriting all subdomains to subdirectories

  - by indorock

  I'm trying to build a catch-all for any subdomains (not captured by previous rewrite rules) for a certain domain, and serve a website from a subdirectory that resides in the same folder as the .htaccess file. I already have my vhosts.conf to send all unmapped requests to a "playground" folder, where I want to easily create new subdomains by simply adding a subfolder. So, my structure looks like this: /var/www/playground |-> /foo |-> /bar The .htacces living inside the /playground folder and /foo and /bar being seperate websites. I want http://foo.domain.com to point to /foo and http://bar.domain.com to /bar. Here is my .htaccess file: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^([^.]+).domain.com$ [NC] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/%1/(.*) RewriteRule ^(.*) /%1/$1 [L] This is supposed to capture the subdomain, add it as a subfolder in RewriteRule, then append after the slash and path information. The second RewriteCond is there to prevent an infinite loop. My idea was that %1 in the second RewriteCond would be able to capture the capture group in the first RewriteCond. But so far I haven't had any success, it's always ending up in a redirect loop. If I would replace %1 in the second RewriteCond with hardcoded 'foo' or 'bar', it works, which leads me to believe that you cannot refer to a capture group inside a RewriteCond. Is is true? Or am I missing something?

  Read the article

• mod_rewrite and Apache questions

  - by John

  We have an interesting situation in relation to some help desk software that we are trying to setup. This is a web based software application that allows customers and staff to log into it and access tickets and supply updates, etc. The challenge we are having deals with the two different domains that we use and the mod_rewrite rules to make it all work with our SSL certificate that is only bound to one of the domains. I will list the use case scenarios below and the challenges that we are having. If you access http://support.domain1.com/support then it redirects fine to https://support.domain2.com/support If you access http://support.domain2.com/support then it redirects fine to https://support.domain2.com/support If you access https://support.domain1.com/support then it throws an error of "server cannot be found" If you access https://support.domain1.com/support/ after having visited https://support.domain2.com/support then you are presented with a "this connection is untrusted" error about the certificate only being valid for the domain2 domain instead of the domain1 domain name I have tried just about every mod_rewrite rule that I can think of to help make this work and I have not been able to locate the correct combination. I was curious if anyone had some ideas on how to make the redirects work correctly. In the end, we are needing all customers and staff to land at https://support.domain2.com/support regardless of the previous URL combinations that they enter, like listed above. Thanks in advance for your help with this.

  Read the article

• Set document root for external subdomain (A Record) via htaccess

  - by 1nsane

  I have a managed server (unable to control apache settings) with the default document root of: /var/www I have a web app running in: /var/www/subdomains/app/webroot I have a dedicated domain managed by the host that has the aforementioned webroot which works perfectly. I would like to allow externally provisioned domains to point to the server/web app via A Record config. If I access the site via IP, it takes me to the index located in /var/www. I would like to configure the .htaccess in my /var/www directory to rewrite requests from the external subdomain to the /var/www/subdomains/app/webroot directory. I've done so using the following rules: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} external\.domain\.com$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /var/www/subdomains/app/webroot/index.php?url=$1 [L,QSA] When accessing external.domain.com, the app loads properly, but the paths to things like CSS files, images, etc. are prefixed with "/subdomains/app/", causing broken links. I've tried changing the RewriteBase (both in /var/www and /var/www/subdomains/app/webroot), as I believe that's what it's designed for - but no luck. Any ideas? FYI the app is built on CakePHP. Thanks

  Read the article

• Load balance to proxies

  - by LoveRight

  I have installed several proxy programs whose IP addresses are, for example, 127.0.0.1:8580(use http), 127.0.0.1:9050(use socks5). You may regrard them as Tor and its alternatives. You know, certain proxy programs are faster than others at times, while at other times, they would be slower. The Firefox add-in, AutoProxy and FoxyProxy Standard, can define a list of rules such as any urls matching the pattern *.google.com should be proxied to 127.0.0.1:8580 using socks5 protocol. But the rule is "static". I want *.google.com to be proxied to the fastest proxy, no matter which one. I think that is kind of load balancing. I thought I could set a rule that direct request of *.google.com to the address the load balancer listens, and the load balancer forwards the request to the fastest real proxy. I notice that tor uses socks5 protocol and some other applications use http. I feel confused that which protocol should the load balancer use. I also start to wonder about the feasibility of this solution. Any suggestions? My operating system is Windows 7 x64.

  Read the article

• USB Drive that simultaneously connects to more than one computer

  - by user2499

  Background: I have a portable USB drive that I use to make sure I have access to common files whenever at home, work, travel etc for cases when I may not have Internet/Network access of any kind. There are some cases when I have to work simultaneously on a laptop and a desktop computer, and for those cases I usually have to unplug this USB hard drive and move it between the two. Question: dual-computer USB drive? Is there a USB-based solution that would enable me to use this portable drive between two computers simultaneously? If there is not a USB-based solution, does anyone have alternative suggestions, consistent with the underlying rationale? Rationale: Sometimes I have to work on a desktop computer with locked-down networking capabilities (such as at the local photocopy shop) and it can be difficult to get a network configuration that allows dual-computer access without breaking things, or accidentally making my USB drive visible to the entire network. Basically what I need is a very simply LAN that is guaranteed to work regardless of the rules or constraints set by the network administrator for wherever I happen to be at the time. See also: http://superuser.com/questions/99274/how-to-connect-two-computers-with-usb

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >