Date:  Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:04:52 -0400
From:  Brian McEwen <bmcewen (at mark) comcast.net>
Subject:  [coba-e:09609] Re: Question regarding web interface and yum updates on fresh x86_64 install of BQ
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <475D9A3B-BDC0-426B-98E5-317DF30D5508 (at mark) comcast.net>
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.LNX.4.63.0703301646420.29134 (at mark) mail.nuonce.net>
References:  <002e01c772ff$bbfd8710$3701a8c0 (at mark) lapxp> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0703301646420.29134 (at mark) mail.nuonce.net>
X-Mail-Count: 09609


On Mar 30, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Brian N. Smith wrote:

> NOW, what will break it is a shitty firewall that re-writes the  
> HTTP header incorrectly.  Per HTTP spec, the header should include  
> the hostname of the virtual site your wanting to connect to.
>
> That is how it is possible to run 20-200 sites on a single IP, and  
> why it is impossible to run SSL the same way.
>
> If the firewall doing the NAT removes the HTTP header, the server  
> gets it and has no idea what to do, it will try to use the default  
> virtual site instead, which usually results in some crazy content  
> and the developer saying WTF.
>
> A proper firewall doesn't change the header, just re-writes IP  
> address/port, and forwards in, and then Apache answers the call and  
> responds with the content.

I really haven't had time to mess with the BQ install I put on my  
Qube 3, but the little messing I have done leads me to believe that  
the Linksys WRT54G is an example of one such (bad) firewall for this  
use.

I have some Cisco routers around but haven't put one up to do NAT yet.

Thanks!

Brian