Let's say I want to have my blog display at blog.example.com, but I own a SSL/TLS cert for example.com only.
I want to have authenticated users transparently redirected from blog.example.com to example.com/internal/blog (which uses TLS) so that their connections can be encrypted. The latter URL should be the admin interface for the blog.
Is this feasible?
I'm using Apache2 on RHEL 5.4.
I'm doing some data recovery from a hard disk. The disk has about 300GB of data on it, but I lack another hard drive that has 300GB of free space.
I have three HDs, with 150, 40, and 120 GB free.
For the creation of the first chunk, I was considering doing the following:
sudo dd if=/dev/sdf1 bs=4096 count=150G | gzip > img1.gz
What should I run on the other machines to "pick up where I left off"?
I installed ClamAV (clamav-daemon and clamav-freshclam) in order to set up a policy of regularly scanning my LTSP thin client setup for Windows viruses.
Currently, we have a variety of users, each with their own group. All files in their home directory are owned by each user, and to each user's group. How can I have clamdscan read all of their files, whether 0700 or not, while not running clamdscan as root? (which is just asking for problems)
I recently added a bunch of users and gave them randomly generated passwords. We've since instructed them to change their passwords, but we suspect that a large number of them have not.
How can we expire the passwords of everyone who hasn't changed their password yet?
We're on Ubuntu 9.04 server using normal /etc/passwd authentication.
I have a bunch of new users to deploy on our system, and as a part of the initial login I want to give them an opportunity to reset their password. How can I best do this so that we don't have to instruct them specifically to do so?
I want to allow anybody in the 192.168.1.0-192.168.1.255 range to be able to log in with a password or a SSH key, but people outside that range to only be able to log in with a SSH key.
Can this be accomplished without more than one sshd?
I'm on Ubuntu 9.04.
Possible Duplicate:
Mac OS X multi-user thin client server (terminal server)?
Hi,
Is there a product (preferably a free or included one) that allows for one to connect to a otherwise headless desktop/server session running on an OS X box?
As in, where the user is given a graphical session and is able to run apps etc through it, kinda like "Windows Terminal Services" or LTSP.
My exact use case is an office, where we have one Mac, but have multiple developers who want to use it to write their software in XCode at the same time. (licensing issues aside)
How can I benchmark the network transfer speed of my servers? We already have an existing file server, but it is fairly old. We recently got a donation of a (relatively) newer P4 box, and I wanted to find a way to test its network+disk I/O speeds to determine if the speed benefit is worth the work to set up a new server.
We're using Debian Lenny as our OS, and all our clients are connecting via HTTP.
I have a service foo which currently starts at runlevel 3 and above. How can I stop it from doing so, without using update-rc.d foo stop 3 ., which (if I understand it correctly) would turn off the service at each runlevel change.
(ie., if I was at runlevel 1 and enabled foo, then when I changed to runlevel 3 it would be disabled, no?)
Running Debian GNU/Linux Lenny.
I want to ensure that users of my system are incapable of chmodding files +x, and I do not want anything in /home/ or /var/ to be executable.
I can't put them on separate partitions.
Running Ubuntu 9.04 Server.
I have a few production Fedora and Debian webservers that host our sites as well as user shell accounts (used for git vcs work, some screen+irssi sessions, etc).
Occasionally a new kernel update will come down the pipeline in yum/apt-get, and I was wondering if most of the fixes are severe enough to warrant a reboot, or if I can apply the fixes sans reboot.
Our main development server currently has 213 days of uptime, and I wasn't sure if it was insecure to run such an older kernel.
I'm somewhat new to server hardware, and was wondering if there was any reason to purchase a 19-inch-rack-mountable server as opposed to a standalone (tower) system, or any difference between the two other than form factor.
We're running a small operation, so we will probably never have enough equipment to justify a full rack.