headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 2 Jul 2006 10:24
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Authentication and SSL

Jose Parrella wrote:

> My configuration file was:

  Try to give a name to the resource that you are trying to protect.

> <snip>
> Server mydomain.com {
>         DocumentRoot /home/jose/public_html/wtf
>
>        Directory / {
>            Handler common
>            Auth Basic {
                Name "Whatever you want"
>               Method htpasswd {
>                  PasswdFile /home/jose/mykeys
>               }
>            }
>         }
>
>         Extension php {
>                 Handler phpcgi
>         }
>
>         DirectoryIndex  index.html, index.php
> }
> </snip>

  By the way, it would be much faster if you use the FastCGI php
  interpreter rather than the CGI one.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jose Parrella | 2 Jul 2006 21:57
Favicon

Re: Authentication and SSL

Alvaro Lopez Ortega escribió:
>   Try to give a name to the resource that you are trying to protect.

alo: Sorry, didn't notice about the reply.

I named the resource, also, in one of my tests. I'm also aware thay you
have a test webserver where plaintext auth actually works.

However, I think I found a workaround (and hit a bug?). Seems like
authentication doesn't work if applied to the root directory of a
server, and when user has at least Lynx and Firefox. When I changed
Directory / to Directory /test, it worked (well PAM didn't but anyway I
won't use PAM over plain HTTP)

So, now: Is there any way to require authentication for the DocumentRoot
of a server in Cherokee? (besides requiring authentication in a
per-extension basis)

>   By the way, it would be much faster if you use the FastCGI php
>   interpreter rather than the CGI one.

I will, thank you very much.

>> 2) When I try to wget the webpage it says 401 Authorization required. If
>> I specify the information in the CLI, it downloads the webpage.
> 
>   This is the expected behavior, actually.

The only problem is that most of my users use Firefox/Internet Explorer
to access to my webpages. I would have to force them to use (at least)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 2 Jul 2006 22:00
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Authentication and SSL

Jose Parrella wrote:

>> Try to give a name to the resource that you are trying to protect.
>
> I named the resource, also, in one of my tests. I'm also aware thay
> you have a test webserver where plaintext auth actually works.
>
> However, I think I found a workaround (and hit a bug?). Seems like
> authentication doesn't work if applied to the root directory of a
> server, and when user has at least Lynx and Firefox. When I changed
> Directory / to Directory /test, it worked (well PAM didn't but
> anyway I won't use PAM over plain HTTP)
>
> So, now: Is there any way to require authentication for the
> DocumentRoot of a server in Cherokee? (besides requiring
> authentication in a per-extension basis)

  You're right, you've found a bug. Here is the patch:

    http://www.0x50.org/bugs/changeset/321

  and here is a new beta version of the next stable release that
  already includes it:

    http://www.alobbs.com/tmp/cherokee-0.5.4b3.tar.gz

>>> 2) When I try to wget the webpage it says 401 Authorization required. If
>>> I specify the information in the CLI, it downloads the webpage.
>>
>>   This is the expected behavior, actually.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jose Parrella | 2 Jul 2006 23:19
Favicon

Re: Authentication and SSL

Alvaro Lopez Ortega escribió:
>   You're right, you've found a bug. Here is the patch:

Impressive. Thanks.

>   If so, I think there are two possible sources for the problem. It
>   might be that either there was no "Name" entry inside the "Auth"
>   block, or it was because of the bug that you found.

I'd rather go for the second option. I have not (yet) applied the patch
since I'm using the dirty authenticate-on-Extension php workaround (the
whole application is written in PHP) and it now correctly asks me for
login and password.

About the SSL problem, I'm not familiar with the usage of strace.
However, strace cherokee& seems to tell me that cherokee is stalling here:

select(9, [8], NULL, NULL, {3, 0})      = 0 (Timeout)

I get around 7 or 8 of these, then:

select(9, [8], NULL, NULL, {3, 0})      = 1 (in [8], left {2, 346000})
read(8, "\273Z\34\243\331\300\351\336", 276) = 8

When I start another processes, the latter messages appear faster (and
other messages appear as well), then the server finally starts. Of
course, if I let it running for enough time it will start eventually, I
think. My kernel is 2.6.15-1-686, Debian package. The CPU is a Pentium
III Coppermine. I'm able to send a complete strace log.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
listmember | 3 Jul 2006 05:31

SCGI (or FastCGI)

I am planning to build a number of application servers separate from the web server.

I seem to find SCGI easier to work with --especially if I have to implement SCGI on my own application servers.
http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/scgi/

Does Cherokee have any plans to support SCGI?

If not, could someone comment on FastCGI (and how well it is implemented on Cherokee).

Cheers
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 Jul 2006 09:35
Picon

Re: SCGI (or FastCGI)

listmember wrote:

> I am planning to build a number of application servers separate from
> the web server.
>
> I seem to find SCGI easier to work with --especially if I have to
> implement SCGI on my own application servers.
>
> Does Cherokee have any plans to support SCGI?

  Cherokee does support SCGI. Here is some documentation about how to
  configure it:

    http://www.0x50.org/doc/SCGI.html

> If not, could someone comment on FastCGI (and how well it is
> implemented on Cherokee).

  FastCGI is fully implemented on Cherokee. Although I would use SCGI
  rather than FastCGI, the protocol is smaller and cleaner :-)

--

-- 
Greetings, alo.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
listmember | 3 Jul 2006 12:49

Windows?

Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
> listmember wrote:
>> Does Cherokee have any plans to support SCGI?
> 
>   Cherokee does support SCGI. Here is some documentation about how to
>   configure it:
>     http://www.0x50.org/doc/SCGI.html

This is simply great news.

I have a related one [well, related in my case, at least ;) ],
some of the SCGI servers will be running (and developed) on
Windows.

It would be sooo nice if I could locate a downloadable binary
for Windows (so that I could do the testing locally) --but,
please don't tell me to compile from sources :)
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 Jul 2006 13:03
Picon

Re: Windows?

listmember wrote:

>>> Does Cherokee have any plans to support SCGI?
>>
>> Cherokee does support SCGI. Here is some documentation about how to
>> configure it: http://www.0x50.org/doc/SCGI.html
>
> This is simply great news.
>
> I have a related one [well, related in my case, at least ;) ], some
> of the SCGI servers will be running (and developed) on Windows.
>
> It would be sooo nice if I could locate a downloadable binary for
> Windows (so that I could do the testing locally) --but, please don't
> tell me to compile from sources :)

  I've been looking - without any luck - for someone to take over this
  task.  I used to compile it on the past, but currently I have no
  time to boot Windows to do it.

  So, the current situation is, Cherokee does work on Windows, but we
  need someone the take care of the compilation of those binaries.

  Some volunteer? :-)

--

-- 
Greetings, alo.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Philip Pemberton | 3 Jul 2006 20:10

Re: Windows?

Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>   So, the current situation is, Cherokee does work on Windows, but we
>   need someone the take care of the compilation of those binaries.
> 
>   Some volunteer? :-)

Cygwin or Mingw?

Also, is there any way to get the list to set the Reply-To header to make my 
replies go back to the list by default?
I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird here, and it seems to default to sending replies 
back to the sender, rather than to the list.

Thanks.
--

-- 
Phil.                         | Kitsune: Acorn RiscPC SA202 64M+6G ViewFinder
philpem <at> dsl.pipex.com         | Cheetah: Athlon64 3200+ A8VDeluxeV2 512M+100G
http://www.philpem.me.uk/     | Tiger: Toshiba SatPro4600 Celeron700 256M+40G
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John Hampton | 3 Jul 2006 20:49

Re: Windows?

Philip Pemberton wrote:
> Cygwin or Mingw?

Mingw
http://alobbs.com/tmp/alo's%20cherokee%20compilation%20howto.txt

> Also, is there any way to get the list to set the Reply-To header to 
> make my replies go back to the list by default?
> I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird here, and it seems to default to sending 
> replies back to the sender, rather than to the list.

Use the "Reply All" button instead of the "Reply" button.

-John
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane