NOT FOUND schrieb am 24.01.03 02:23:26:
Hi Frank,
I don't know what happened to some people when they read words like "Windows" and "Front Page". In my opinion, thats a little bit stupid and beyond of reality - Windows *CLIENTS* are there Linux will never get there, because people like Ruprecht (Sorry, but my mum have no time und understand to rebuild my kernel next time). Hey Ruprecht, why so unfriedly? Just think about it and help, if you have the knowledge: Give a productive hint or be quite, ok?. So simple.
Frank, I'm running SuSE 8.1 and there you can find packages and therefore descriptions regarding Front Page Server Extensions. You can find there mod_frontpage and the Front Page Server extensions 4.0 / 5.0. Be aware to make a decision about Extensions 2000 *OR* 2002 - I think 2002 is much more safe - and may be strongly recommened for that - but requires a httpd-Patch! I think SuSE 8.1 have one - but that httpd is outdated and mission importand features (but this is to be proofed). Another starting point may be http://home.edo.uni-dortmund.de/~chripo/about/index.html.
I have played a little bit around with SuSEs FPSE but don't succeeded. I think there is no other possibility as to rebuild the Apache with the patch included - there may be another way, I don't know. Ok, this may help you not so much. Maybe a try more the next week and iit would be very kind of you when you counld tell me in the case you succeed in the meanwhile.
Thanks, Thorsten.
=================================================
Hi Franck,
I must install mod_frontpage, it isn't for me but for a client :(
Your problem. Say the client it should take proper thinks and not so a bullshit !!. An argument is the security risks in Frontpage and the IE-Area. Have a look to the pages of Mr.Larholm and you know what I mean.
You are not supported from me.
Regards, Ruprecht
---------------------------------- Ruprecht Helms IT-Service und Softwareentwicklung
Tel/Fax.: +49[0]7621 16 99 16 Homepage: http://www.rheyn.de email: info@rheyn.de ----------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________________ Wir benachrichtigen Sie uber neue E-Mails, wo immer Sie moechten. WEB.DE FreeMail - http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021186
Hi Thorsten Marsen, Be aware to
make a decision about Extensions 2000 *OR* 2002 - I think 2002 is much more safe - and may be strongly recommened for that - but requires a httpd-Patch!
That is a very big reason for nontaking frontpage. Others are the blowing up of html-pages with ms-special-commands. And the third, relating to the last - you need extensions to execute such sites and you can only upload the pages from frontpage. Other editors (Dreamweaver, Quanta, asWedit, ...) produces normal site without the above mentioned bullshit of extensions and you need not especially ms-extensions for running and you can upload the pages via ftp. Regards, Ruprecht ---------------------------------- Ruprecht Helms IT-Service und Softwareentwicklung Tel/Fax.: +49[0]7621 16 99 16 Homepage: http://www.rheyn.de email: info@rheyn.de ----------------------------------
Hi Ruprecht, hi others,
That is a very big reason for nontaking frontpage.
I believe the issue of not taking FP extensions is not the issue. A client is requesting it and he is paying for that. If a service provider is not providing the service, the client will choose another one.
Others are the blowing up of html-pages with ms-special-commands.
This argument is void again. Those few hundred bytes embedded in a page will not decrease the download performance significantly. A well designed page (mo matter which editor you choose) is fast to load. I can also use vi and have no superfluous bit in my page but embed a lot of large pictures, video clips and flash animations to make it slow to load. The clients decision for a software is not the choice of his service provider.
And the third, relating to the last - you need extensions to execute such sites and you can only upload the pages from frontpage.
Untrue again. I use FP for a basic fast design and I am aware of its problems. However, my sites are optimized for all browsers, so I don't use the "special proprietary features" and my opera on my main linux box shows those pages as fine as the IE on a windoze. I used FP to upload pages to a standard ftp server on a linux box and it worked. However, a FTP program which allows you to leave out all the unnecessary folders is strongly recommended. The point here is, what security implications do those extensions have on a vanilla SuSE-shipped Apache. Are there any known risks and are there suitable protection methods. Answering this will allow our colleague to evaluate the risks to his systems and calculate the costs. It is then his decision if he offers a solution to his client and for what price. Sorry about this long post but as an old AMIGA user I am a bit sick about those religous wars "OS X is better than OS Y". Every software has its advantages and disadvantages but sometimes it is not your choice to take the ideal product. cya Jörn ------------------------------------------------------------ Jörn Ott Telefon: (0 22 24) 94 08 - 73 EDV Service & Beratung Telefax: (0 22 24) 94 08 -74 Lohfelder Str. 33 E-Mail: mailto:white@ott-service.de 53604 Bad Honnef WWW: http://www.ott-service.de/
Hi Jörn Ott,
I believe the issue of not taking FP extensions is not the issue. A client is requesting it and he is paying for that. If a service provider is not providing the service, the client will choose another one.
Should the client change to you. I built my meaning about FP and I'm never working with it. Regards, Ruprecht
On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 09:37, Jörn Ott wrote:
Hi Ruprecht, hi others,
That is a very big reason for nontaking frontpage.
I believe the issue of not taking FP extensions is not the issue. A client is requesting it and he is paying for that. If a service provider is not providing the service, the client will choose another one.
Seen somewhere in the world: "Your clients? 90% are stupid, and you know that..." I don't even exist. I run my own web server, providing web hosting, mail etc. I'm alone, small thing. But i just cannot afford compromising the security because of one client. I agree with Ruprecht. But I'm also a pacifist. One of my servers runs Roxen WebServer (no comments; there is no decent support at all but I learnt pike...) which provides a built in FrontPage module. I've never used and I'll never will. I'm unable to discuss any security related implications but might be an alternative. just my 0.2$. Peace. -- "The Man, he is not; he becomes." - NEHER. .-. e-SecureNet /v\ We Run SuSE Project Manager // \\ *The LINUX Experts* c/o Miguel Albuquerque /( )\ Av. Miremont 46 ^^-^^ 1202 - GE, SWITZERLAND NATEL 079 543 1935 http://counter.li.org Linux user #301007 mailto:mfoacs@e-workshop.ch http://mfoacs.e-workshop.ch ________________________________________________________________
Hi Miguel Albuquerque,
I don't even exist. I run my own web server, providing web hosting, mail etc. I'm alone, small thing. But i just cannot afford compromising the security because of one client. I agree with Ruprecht. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nice to hear.
But I'm also a pacifist. One of my servers runs Roxen WebServer (no comments;
Old colleges told me from very difficultis using roxen combined with xml. To beginn discussion about roxen is a offtopic-thread and must not be created. Regards, Ruprecht ---------------------------------- Ruprecht Helms IT-Service und Softwareentwicklung Tel/Fax.: +49[0]7621 16 99 16 Homepage: http://www.rheyn.de email: info@rheyn.de ----------------------------------
Be aware to make a decision about Extensions 2000 *OR* 2002 - I think 2002 is much more safe - and may be strongly recommened for that - but requires a httpd-Patch!
That is a very big reason for nontaking frontpage. Others are the blowing up of html-pages with ms-special-commands. And the third, relating to the last - you need extensions to execute such sites and you can only upload the
The problem is not the patch, it is to get a recent version of apache that runs with that patch. Sometimes your distribution comes with special compilefeatures and is mostly patched by online updates. This makes it difficult to compile apache with all features the distribution provided it. In most cases you will not need all this features, so look, which features you really need and compile with the minimum you need. pages
from frontpage.
Blown up code - maybe! Some of our admins say it's damaged code :-) Why use such feature, if you can build virtual Hosts with DNS-alias? You set home of User XY as webroot for virtual Server x.y.net. Were is there the need of fp-extensions, unless fp in all versions supports ftp-upload? The only benefit is the uploadfeature. Even webDAV is supported by fp.
Other editors (Dreamweaver, Quanta, asWedit, ...) produces normal site without the above mentioned bullshit of extensions and you need not especially ms-extensions for running and you can upload the pages via ftp.
So why use the extensions anyway and give some kiddies more chances to get your server hacked? I use lamp and perl on all my servers. This fits all my needs and everything is running well without the need of fp-extensions. Philippe
Hi Philippe Vogel,
I use lamp and perl on all my servers. This fits all my needs and everything is running well without the need of fp-extensions.
I only produce for that and under it. It is a little bit different to you the p-part by myself is php. Regards, Ruprecht ---------------------------------- Ruprecht Helms IT-Service und Softwareentwicklung Tel/Fax.: +49[0]7621 16 99 16 Homepage: http://www.rheyn.de email: info@rheyn.de ----------------------------------
participants (5)
-
Jörn Ott -
Miguel Albuquerque -
Philippe Vogel -
Ruprecht Helms -
Thorsten Marsen