Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 232 of 806  Not logged in ELOG logo
 Find |  Login |  Help 
 Full | Summary | Threaded | Hide attachments  Show only new entries    6445 Entries 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 231, 232, 233 ... 804, 805, 806   Next  
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Categoryup OS ELOG Version Subject
  1591   Fri Jan 13 02:37:10 2006 Agree Chris Warnerchristopher_warner@dcd.uscourts.govCommentLinux Re: LDAP

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Carl Shirey wrote:
I know you want to make ELOG a stand alone program. But is there a way to still make a stand alone but have the option work with LDAP?
FYI
Elog works great we us it for our shift carryover and we have about 25 people useing it and I have heard no complants with it.
Thanks


I added your vote to the "PAM" authentication on the wishlist, since PAM contains an LDAP module.


Please Add my vote too. I think that would be great.
  1615   Fri Jan 20 02:53:40 2006 Smile Chris Warnerchristopher_warner@dcd.uscourts.govCommentLinux2.6Re: Buffer Overflow?

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Chris Warner wrote:
Users can access root level directories by using a modified URL. I saw on some security web sites that this was a problem in previous versions. Was it not fixed in 2.6?

To recreate enter http://yourhost.yourdomain.com/../../../../etc/passwd

view your password file in the browser.

If this was previously reported, is there a fix?

Chris Warner


Thanks for telling me, I didn't know. I was able to reproduce your problem under certain conditions, and I just released version 2.6.1 to fix it. However it has nothing to do with an old buffer overflow (see elog:941).

I would strongly advise everybody to upgrade as soon as possible.


Thanks for the quick response!
  1732   Tue Feb 28 11:26:22 2006 Reply Alex Halex@synergie-inf.comCommentWindows2.6.1-1668Re: MOptions problem ?
> Hi Holger,
> 
> > Which ELOG version do you use?
> I'am using the version V2.6.1-1653 of Elog 
> 
> > From which logbook are the screenshots? (I assume it's Liste - right?)
> Right :)!
> 
> I've just seen that Stefan has build a V2.6.1-1663 version of ELOG.
> I try to install this new version and gave you answer as soon as possible :)!

Now I'am using the Elog V2.6.1-1668 and same probleme.
I think it's a data problem. I have edited my logbooks\Liste\050302a.log with an Hexadecimal editor and found one 
carruage return juste before the
  1810   Sat Apr 15 00:37:48 2006 Agree Marco Calfmarco@kelf.nl.eu.orgCommentLinux2.5.7User review..use case: implementing GTD
Playing with elog for a day made me very happy. I was looking for a webbased thingy to support list building for 'Getting Things Done' by David Allen ( David Allen's Getting Things Done ).
Elog is simple, intuitative and very powerfull!
Less informative is the fact that i found no bugs till now Frown
On usablitity..maybe some more control over the dialog..eg the 'in between' screens (eg after a move...the 'to which log i would like to resume' question)...or have an option to be in select mode by default.
Tnx
  1878   Fri Jul 14 20:29:21 2006 Agree Elaine Cristina Franchini dos Anjoselaine@ccuec.unicamp.brCommentLinux2.6.1-1681Re: Inserting images via Internet Explorer

Stefan Ritt wrote:

Elaine Cristina Franchini dos Anjos wrote:
I observed that there is a difference between IE and others browsers.
When I use "insert image" button in Netscape, for instance,
it creates automatically a tag like 
[IMG]elog:1/1[/IMG]
and
includes an attachment in the ELOG entry.

When a try to do the same action in Internet Explorer, only
the attachment is created without the tag 
[IMG]elog:1/1[/IMG]
.


This is a problem of the JavaScript implementation of Internet Explorer. After some externsive research I found now a way to convince IE to do the right thing. The fix is contains in SVN revision 1701 and will be released with 2.6.2-2 soon.



Great job !
I tried the SVN revision 1701, and it works perfectly.
Thank you for all your effort.

Regards,

Elaine
  1882   Mon Jul 17 13:44:37 2006 Question Gerald Ebberinkg.h.p.ebberink@nclr.nlCommentLinux2.6.2-1706Duplicate of a reply should be a reply
Hello everybody

This weekend I found that if I duplicate a reply it does not become a reply it self.
Is this on purpouse?
I have been through the source a little (not much time for that) and I can not find a reason where the "in reply to" value is dropped.

Could anyone give me an pointer?
  1883   Mon Jul 17 13:49:37 2006 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chCommentLinux2.6.2-1706Re: Duplicate of a reply should be a reply

Gerald Ebberink wrote:
Hello everybody

This weekend I found that if I duplicate a reply it does not become a reply it self.
Is this on purpouse?
I have been through the source a little (not much time for that) and I can not find a reason where the "in reply to" value is dropped.

Could anyone give me an pointer?


This is on purpuse. The Duplicate functionality is ment to "clone" an existing entry, to save some typing work if an existing entry contains most of what one wants in a new entry. If one duplicates a reply, it is detached from the original thread, so there is not entry to attach the duplicate to. I guess you want to make a new reply to an existing entry, and then have another existing reply as a template for that, but this is not possible. If I would not drop the "in reply to" value, the duplicate would point to the wrong entry.
  2088   Wed Nov 22 02:55:48 2006 Reply Rob Mahurinrob@utk.eduCommentLinux2.5.7-1Re: Securing Elog with SSL and Apache
Hi,

I am an apache ignoramus who has been trying to follow these instructions on a Debian 3.1 box.  I got hung up for
the following reason.  I had to explicitly enable some apache features, which was a simple matter of making the
following symlinks in /etc/apache2/mods-enabled: 

	proxy.conf -> ../mods-available/proxy.conf
	proxy.load -> ../mods-available/proxy.load
	rewrite.load -> ../mods-available/rewrite.load
	headers.load -> ../mods-available/headers.load
	ssl.conf -> ../mods-available/ssl.conf
	ssl.load -> ../mods-available/ssl.load

Easy enough.  The default proxy.conf has sensible-looking warnings about not running your server as an open proxy.
 However, I wasn't able to tweak it to encrypted port forwarding from :443 to :8079.

What I've done that works is to add a local proxy section to the /etc/apache2/conf.d/elogredirect.conf by Damon
Nettles:

	<VirtualHost *:443>
		### ... everything else

		<Proxy *>
			Allow from all
		</Proxy>
	</VirtualHost>

I think, since this is in a subsection, that it only affects that virtual host.  But it'd be nice if someone who
actually understands this language would reassure me that I'm not setting myself up for some security hole.  At
any rate it took me long enough to figure this out that I thought I'd post a note in public, and this seems like
the forum to do so.

Thanks.

Rob
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 231, 232, 233 ... 804, 805, 806   Next  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6