Sebkinne Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Hey everyone, I have seen threads asking about security or hardening of the pineapple more and more now. In my eyes, the first step to do this is to separate the public html and the pineappleUI from each other. If you all take well to my proposition, I will break up the UI as follows: /pineapple/ -> Pineapple UI. Accessed through http://172.16.42.1:PORT/ /www/ -> Public html. Accessed as normal through http://172.16.42.1/ If we break up the webserver as above, we can add mac address filtering / ip filtering to the UI access. If you are in favour of the separation, please vote yes and post a suggestion for a port. Please don't all post 1337, that is probably the most obvious port and therefore not my favourite. I suggest 1471 as that is the old Jasager port. If you are not in favour of the separation, vote no and state your reason in a reply to this thread. Lastly, if this change does happen, all module developers need to adjust their modules to work with the new directory. I don't see a module downtime being a problem as we have the stable and development channel and this would be released to the development channel first. I am looking forward to your feedback! Best Regards, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neworld Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 How would this work accessing from an android? Could you still get to the UI page? || How about the Raspberry pi? I'm just trying to figure out what the disadvantages are here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebkinne Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 How would this work accessing from an android? Could you still get to the UI page? || How about the Raspberry pi? I'm just trying to figure out what the disadvantages are here. In regards to access, any browser that supports different ports than 80. And to be honest, I haven't encountered a browser that doesn't support other ports using the :PORT notation. It is really simple actually. Instead of going to http://172.16.42.1/pineapple you go to http://172.16.42.1:1471 TLDR: No disadvantages I can think of, just requires people to realize that the way of accessing the UI has changed. I can imagine there being a few questions about it on the forum: "Where has the pineapple UI gone?". Best Regards, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loozr Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Well, as far as i know of, I think the ui has been on port 1471 in previous versions of the pineapple, right? So, i guess there would be some knowledge about the possible disadvantages? Although I don't feel the need for this, I really don't see what bad it could do. (other than for the module writers that is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neworld Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Well, as far as i know of, I think the ui has been on port 1471 in previous versions of the pineapple, right? So, i guess there would be some knowledge about the possible disadvantages? Although I don't feel the need for this, I really don't see what bad it could do. (other than for the module writers that is) Oh... didn't think about the modules. You would have to redo all of them, would you not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebkinne Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Oh... didn't think about the modules. You would have to redo all of them, would you not? Not redo as much as modify. It isn't a big change for module developers, but it does require them changing paths. Best, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digininja Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 The original interface ran on port 1471 for the very reason of being able to firewall it off so it could only be accessed by the owner so I'm definitely in favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebkinne Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Alright then, it will be available in the next feature release. Best Regards, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I think we should use port 9002 because it is over 9000 and everyone uses 9001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digininja Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 What does being over 9000 have to do with anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr-Protocol Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Why not leave it like it is, but give a menu option to change the port to whatever the user would like? Not sure how that would mess with modules. Symbolic links? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebkinne Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Why not leave it like it is, but give a menu option to change the port to whatever the user would like? Not sure how that would mess with modules. Symbolic links? No, sadly that wouldn't work well. Modules will have to follow a certain pattern and it wouldn't be feasible to support both types.. :/ The UI will be separated within the next release or two. The default port will be 1471 but modifiable through the config menu. Best Regards, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitstream Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I vote for 1471 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I like the idea of it being customizable via the config. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neworld Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I like the idea of it being customizable via the config. The problem is that the modules have to change when you change the port from the config. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebkinne Posted September 3, 2012 Author Share Posted September 3, 2012 I like the idea of it being customizable via the config. Only the port is customizable. Not the separation itself. But you meant that, right? I agree that this is best to allow people to use their favourite ports. The problem is that the modules have to change when you change the port from the config. Nope, this is false. Modules need to change for the separation itself. The changes are minor though. Changing the port should not have an influence on the modules what-so-ever. Best Regards, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Only the port is customizable. Not the separation itself. But you meant that, right? I agree that this is best to allow people to use their favourite ports. Best Regards, Sebkinne Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neworld Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Have you talked to Darren about this?? What's he suppose to do with all the extra manuals he has laying around? All the manuals say 172.16.42.1/pineapple.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digininja Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Add a slip of paper that says: "The URL on page X has been changed to ..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry99705 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Add a slip of paper that says: "The URL on page X has been changed to ..." Great. Now we need a TODO. (Technical Order Distribution Office) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebkinne Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Have you talked to Darren about this?? What's he suppose to do with all the extra manuals he has laying around? All the manuals say 172.16.42.1/pineapple.... The decision has been made. And yes, we do communicate about changes which may affect things, especially others work. Add a slip of paper that says: "The URL on page X has been changed to ..." I couldn't have said it better myself. Best Regards, Sebkinne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Kitchen Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I'm in favor of 1471...It's classic :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineDominator Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I also like how sslstrip and other http tools will not affect the ui and managment:-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreidiv Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I suggest the good old 2600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickduck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 What about changing it to 172.16.42.1:1471/pineapple If someone port scans it and sees 1471 then they might try to connect to that port and be greeted with a logon box. Having to add /pineapple would make it a little more difficult. Weak security through obscurity but any little helps.... ...and on the other hand maybe /pineapple isn't a good idea either. It gives it away that it is a pineapple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.