| 1 |
On Thursday 07 May 2009, Steve wrote: |
| 2 |
> Anthony Metcalf wrote: |
| 3 |
> > *That* depends on the exact specifics of what he is/isn't allowed to |
| 4 |
> > be showing....."They" may not even want the service to show as |
| 5 |
> > existing at that address for whatever reason. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Thanks for all your discussion... I'll try to clarify - the PPP over |
| 8 |
> SSH approach does seem to offer the best compromise. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I've a development site which hosts https and http services for existing |
| 11 |
> applications both remotely and locally. I'm developing an entirely new |
| 12 |
> https service under Apache and want to be absolutely sure that I get no |
| 13 |
> unexpected interactions between configurations for "live" services and |
| 14 |
> the experimental in-development service - and I definitely don't want a |
| 15 |
> random member of the public stumbling across the in-development site - |
| 16 |
> which might expose unacceptable vulnerabilities as rough-cuts of code |
| 17 |
> are trialled. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Have your development https service set up as a virtual host on a webroot of |
| 20 |
your choice, listening to a random port and also set up user authentication |
| 21 |
for the webroot fs. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In this way, whether accessed via the Internet or LAN, visitors will need to |
| 24 |
know the port to connect to and will also have to provide suitable |
| 25 |
credentials. You can even control access to parts of the development https |
| 26 |
fs using <location> tags to define them and setting different user defined |
| 27 |
access to them. If you use AuthDigest you can also set separate realms if |
| 28 |
the fs is extensive and access requirements complex. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> It is entirely acceptable for any host on my LAN to access the |
| 31 |
> in-development service. I want to allow collaborators to access the |
| 32 |
> in-development service remotely over a SSH tunnel from their LAN, too |
| 33 |
> (where I'm also not concerned about abuse...) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
For collaboration setting DAV on is probably a better option as it uses |
| 36 |
lockfiles and won't have one developer overwritting (un)wittingly changes |
| 37 |
made by others. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> The snag I'm finding at the moment I'm sure I'll overcome... and relates |
| 40 |
> to access from my LAN. While I can sort-of see how to establish a new |
| 41 |
> device with a new IP address on the remote LAN (with SSH and pppd) I'm |
| 42 |
> not sure how to establish a second IP address for my single Ethernet |
| 43 |
> adaptor to make this work on my LAN (though I'm sure it is do-able...) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
An adaptor can have more than one public IP address (multi-homing) and you can |
| 46 |
use something like: ifconfig eth0:0 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 up to |
| 47 |
set them up (increment eth0:1, eth0:2, etc accordingly). However, if your |
| 48 |
SSL vhost is listening on a random port you don't need binding of many |
| 49 |
addresses to one NIC. You can use the same ip address. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> I'm also curious to discover if there is a neat Gentooish way to |
| 52 |
> establish my two instances of Apache. I'm broadly familiar to doing |
| 53 |
> this a hackish way - but I'd prefer it plays nicely with any emerge |
| 54 |
> updates. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Other than vhost I guest you can run a second instance by reading section 5 |
| 57 |
here (but I'm not sure you need to do that anyway): |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/php/php4-php5-configuration.xml |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Regards, |
| 62 |
Mick |
Archives