Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
well that's just different virtual hosts, nothing specifically interesting about that, but the issue is that you can't serve two certificates from a single ssl port. So if you want this, you would need 2 IP addreses, or use a different port than 443 for one of them.
What you can often do is use SAN's (Subject Alternative Names) in a certificate to hold two hostnames in a single cert, and then that covers both sites just fine, but you have no idea what site is being requested when an SSL connection is being set up, so you can only provide one cert.
oh, right, so you want to jail a user to a specific directory? That's easy enough, just use an htaccess directive to only allow certain users in certain places. you can do this with .htaccess files in each directory, or centrally in your httpd.conf file.
SNI is no use here, you're only looking at using one server. TBH, I didn't realize SNI is officially as well supported as it appears to be, so didn't mention it originally. But either way, you're looking at using client certificates to identify a user, which is fine, but that's not affecting the server cert at all.
Using a user/pass AND a client cert seems like overkill to me. client certs are usually an alternative solution, not a complimentary one.
I don't like the individual files, and apache foundation officially recommend not using them, and putting the directives in httpd.conf instead. However they are good for understanding how the jigsaw fits together a bit easier.
the htaccess stuff will only allow certain users in certain directories, that's all you really seem to want. The SSL stuff is just bog standard SSL, no user specific angle on it.
I will point out a possible oversight on how apache actually works...
Any file apache has access to can read, and (unless ownership/security labeling blocks it) can also be updated.
User identification stops at the apache web server. It can identify a user... but it can not reliably partition the data apache has access to. Once the server is entered, any bug in apache can be used to access any file the apache user id has access to.
This is unlike ssh, where each user is separately identified to the kernel.
All apache logins look the same...
Now this applies mostly to the CGI applications. Basic file access is still handled by apache (beware PHP useage - this is a CGI and no CGI has effective identity)
Maybe it'd help if you thought of those as domains, or Hosts (really <VirtualHosts *:80>) and not actual breathing end-users.
Now, they very well could be called /user and you have every right to do so.
Your "users" are seen as "clients" in terms of the apache service daemon. It's a client-server world.
Unless user1,2, and 3 all sit in the same chair, how would user3 even 'know' about /user url?