|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 222 responses total. |
hematite
|
|
response 50 of 222:
| 
May 10 04:25 UTC 2000 |
I'm still being asked for my password half way through agora or any of
the conferences...I can back up, but not go forward...
|
jep
|
|
response 51 of 222:
|
May 10 13:48 UTC 2000 |
I've also seen a lot of the "Authorization failed. Retry" thing. Almost
always, when I see this problem, I cannot log back in for a while. If I
wait an hour and then connect again using Backtalk, I can get in.
I said "almost always" because today, for the first time, when I was
prompted to log in again, I was able to do so immediately.
|
senna
|
|
response 52 of 222:
|
May 10 17:11 UTC 2000 |
Does anyone know what's causing this?
|
drew
|
|
response 53 of 222:
|
May 10 18:51 UTC 2000 |
Your cookies are getting eaten?
|
omni
|
|
response 54 of 222:
|
May 10 19:08 UTC 2000 |
It happened to me as well. It said "Internal server error". Perhaps
this is a hardware problem?
|
janc
|
|
response 55 of 222:
|
May 11 04:28 UTC 2000 |
Backtalk doesn't use cookies. It's not a hardware problem.
I got the internal server error from backtalk, and logged on and found that
yes, there were 32 processes running as user 'nobody'. This means that the
http server, which runs as 'nobody' can't fork more processes, so it can't
run backtalk, or the password authenticator.
About a dozen of those processes were 'fingerd' proceses, mostly very old.
Fingerd also runs as 'nobody' but the processes shouldn't be hanging around
that long. This is probably some bug in fingerd. I was too lazy to try to
figure out what was causing it. Instead I taught robocop (Grex's process
table police) to assassinate all fingerd processes that are more than 10
minutes old. This should reduce the problem.
Better things to do would be:
(1) Switch 'httpd' to run as some user other than nobody. This is a good
idea for various security reasons, but it is also a good idea because
it would no longer be competing with any other program for processes
(2) Make the pwauth authenticator into a daemon instead of running it
every time we you hit a page. This would improve performance, and it
would be running as root, not 'nobody' so it would always be available.
Unfortunately, either of these projects requires me to do a lot of work.
Normal Unix systems allow users to have a lot more than 32 processes. Grex
has it set low because we need to choke back fork bombs.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 56 of 222:
|
May 11 11:47 UTC 2000 |
(I wish I had a "Cookie Monster" that would eat all the no-good cookies
in my computer.)
|
scott
|
|
response 57 of 222:
|
May 11 14:33 UTC 2000 |
There's a little shareware out there called "cookie cutter" which you can use
to selectively delete cookies. When I downloaded it you could use it free
for 10 times, and then have to pay for further use. The only confusing thing
is that you mark what you want to save, insead of marking what you want to
delete.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 222:
|
May 11 15:21 UTC 2000 |
I have a Cookie Monster. It is called 'locked'. I have my MagicCookie
file locked, so that when I quit Netscape, no cookies are written
to it. However the cookies needed while 'surfing' are available in
active memory. Best of both worlds, perhaps.
It is so easy to edit cookies, if you save them, that I don't see any
reason to pay for a utility to do it - unless it costs less than $2 maybe.
|
goose
|
|
response 59 of 222:
|
May 11 16:06 UTC 2000 |
Is MagicCookie the software that does this or is it called Locked?
|
sno
|
|
response 60 of 222:
|
May 11 16:08 UTC 2000 |
My ~/.netscape/cookies file is linked to /dev/null
Never had a problem, and I don't care that I retype my cgi login info.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 222:
|
May 11 16:19 UTC 2000 |
MagicCookie is where Netscape stores cookies. One just locks that file
so nothing can be written to it (this is an OS option - no extra software).
I am, incidentally, running MacOs (and I gather sno is running Unix), but
something equivalent should be available on the DOS platform.
|
remmers
|
|
response 62 of 222:
|
May 11 17:09 UTC 2000 |
Netscape doesn't give you error messages when it finds it
can't write to the file?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 63 of 222:
|
May 11 17:29 UTC 2000 |
Nope. It is "user friendly". (Why should Netscape care?)
|
remmers
|
|
response 64 of 222:
|
May 12 00:42 UTC 2000 |
It depends on what the user wants, and Netscape can't read minds.
If the user *wants* to save cookies but the file had gotten
locked inadvertently, the it would be more user-friendly to give
an error message.
|
janc
|
|
response 65 of 222:
|
May 12 03:20 UTC 2000 |
From time to time I run vi on my cookie file and delete all the trash.
|
janc
|
|
response 66 of 222:
|
May 12 03:29 UTC 2000 |
Grex wasn't serving web pages of any kind for a while today. Scott rebooted
the system after 52 days of uptime (just because he thought it might change
the air a bit), and uncovered the fact that the last time I upgraded Apache
I forgot to do one step needed to make the new apache get run after a reboot.
Oops.
Apache is still running out of processes occasionally. I don't understand
why. If someone notices this happening (sudden requests to re-login, sudden
system error pages appearing instead of backtalk pages) if you quickly log
in and do 'ps -auxwww | mail janc' then it might give me some data I can
make sense of.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 67 of 222:
|
May 12 04:56 UTC 2000 |
Well, you have a point John, though locking a file "inadvertently"
on a Mac isn't easy. If it is easy on a PC, then maybe the PC version
does give a warning?
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 68 of 222:
|
May 12 11:16 UTC 2000 |
Not easy? Don't you just have to get "file info" and click on the lock box?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 69 of 222:
|
May 12 11:27 UTC 2000 |
He said "inadvertently" . . .
|
davel
|
|
response 70 of 222:
|
May 12 14:40 UTC 2000 |
I inadvertently click on the wrong thing sometimes. Especially since I
usually use keystroke shortcuts, which are *much* faster & don't require
taking my hands off the keyboard.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 222:
|
May 12 16:21 UTC 2000 |
There is no keystroke to lock a file on a Mac. You have to open Get Info,
move your cursor to the lock box, and click on it. Nearly impossible to
do inadvertently. You have to *want* to lock the file (...cheeeeez....).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 72 of 222:
|
May 14 03:23 UTC 2000 |
Even though <CMD>I is the keyboard shortcut for Get Info, there is still
the problem of selecting the file and mouse-clicking the Lock box. Nope,
not easy to do inadvertently.
In DOS/Windows, set the Read Only attribute. In WinNT (and 95/98/2K?)
use Find to find the files named "cookie", right-click on them, select
Properties, and click the read-only box. Works just fine.
|
bru
|
|
response 73 of 222:
|
May 15 01:48 UTC 2000 |
I have been having a problem telnetting in from work. I keep getting athe
prompt in the middle of the text. yes, I am set to vt-100.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 74 of 222:
|
May 15 12:12 UTC 2000 |
Seems like it's difficult to accidentally lock a file on the PC too.
|
