(May 9, 2015 12:30 AM)AlphaDelta Wrote:  You don't solve DDoS attacks you mitigate them, which using NGINX over Apache would actually do to some degree.

HF at this time runs on Apache 2.2.22 (Debian) which apparently has some denial of service problems.

Quote:Although technically Apache could be more effective for a website which is mainly PHP based.

Quote:So for a forum, your apache setup isn't as bad as you think. In fact it might be a lot better.

Quote:We can run some tests over summer and collect performance data.

Also lets do the rework on an alternate server so there is no downtime, once we have tested and ensured everything is working then we can migrate the solution onto our main content server.

(May 9, 2015 12:33 AM)Omniscient Wrote:  Read about PFSense https://www.pfsense.org I would love to play around with that.

Which is why I still use and even to a degree, require Apache. We are a heavily php based site.

I like Apache a lot. I have no plans to drop it. Just put Nginx in front of it. Dynamic content shouldn't be served by Nginx. Just not how it should be done.

There are lot of "we" in that statement.

Quote:And yes a lot of "we" as I believe I have a lot to offer and could help you make an amazing web solution.

Quote:I have an understanding of how these attacks work from the ground up and how to develop solutions to detect and stop them.

(May 9, 2015 12:45 AM)Omniscient Wrote:  Yeah but no. Sorry but no one touches my configuration.

I don't have need for your help but I'm sure a lot of members do. You should offer them help since they might be more receptive to it.

(May 9, 2015 12:33 AM)Novaly Wrote:  Please don't talk about a topic you are ignorant on.

You mitigate attacks, by solving how they work and making a SOLUTION. This isn't just adding some reverse proxy which can handle a 50Gb/s layer 4 flood. This is solving how we can detect and firewall these attacks before they hit the server.

You fail to understand that the attack is not manifesting from a vulnerability in Apache itself.

(May 9, 2015 12:52 AM)AlphaDelta Wrote:  Sweetheart I wasn't implying the problem was a result of an vulnerability of Apache I was merely pointing out the fact that the server software was outdated and it was unrelated to your reply, it was my fault for structuring my response in a way that it could have been easily misconstrued.

You have however pointed out that I was wrong about my initial point, thank you for that, but you worded it in a way that is insulting and I'd just like to point out that if it were intentional I'd advise you to talk a little bit nicer, people aren't going to listen to you if you're insulting or talking down to them.

(May 8, 2015 11:58 PM)Novaly Wrote:  What the fuck? Simply using NGINX wouldn't solve this problem.

It's not an exploit manifesting from the apache server.

It's the fact that the server is having to process thousands of malicious requests every second.

(May 9, 2015 05:23 AM)Angеl Beats Wrote:  Actually having nginx as the frontend would help a huge amount, you could block incorrect host records with ease, while using barely any resources.

(May 9, 2015 07:21 AM)An0ny Wrote:  You can do that with Apache too.

However I am not completely sure how, for nginx it's done automatically for me with virtual hosts.

I made all invalid virtual hosts go to the default nginx page, someone attacked it so i made it return 0 bytes (444) and boom issue fixed.

Code

server {
      listen   80 default_server;
      return 444;

      }

apache will have issue handling this much traffic i think

(May 9, 2015 08:09 AM)Repeat Wrote:  You're both stupid. He doesn't need your help nor did he ask for it.

(May 7, 2015 11:02 AM)Omniscient Wrote:  Going to have to discuss this openly to members.