Skip to main content

virtualhost - Apache ip-based hosting setup and httpd.conf directives



In apache, I would like to setup "ip-based" hosting for 2 sites and enable SSL for them. However, I'm not clear on how to configure httpd.conf file.



Questions:




1) Do I need a NameVirtualHost directive for ip-based setup? On Apache's site, it say it's required for name-based but there's no mention of ip-based.



2) If NameVirtualHost required, must the number of description and quantity match the number of VirtualHost directives? Example, can I say "NameVirtualHost *:80" and later use and ? Or, will I need "NameVirtualHost IP_ADDRESS_1:80" and "NameVirtualHost IP_ADDRESS_2:80"



3) If ServerName were example1.com (without "www"), would it make a difference??



4) In VirtualHost, do I need to set a value for ServerAlias, such as the IP itself?



One thing I'll to share is if you have (and likely including) ssl.conf, you should not add "Listen 443" to your httpd.conf, otherwise upon reload, apache will throw a "Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address [::]:443" error. 




#see above questions about below directive
#NameVirtualHost *:80
#NameVirtualHost *:443  
...

  DocumentRoot /www/example1
  ServerName www.example1.com




  DocumentRoot /www/example2
  ServerName www.example2.org



  DocumentRoot /www/example1
  ServerName www.example1.com

  SSLEngine on
  SSLProtocol all

  SSLCertificateFile /home/web/example1_certs/public.crt
  SSLCertificateKeyFile /home/web/example1_certs/private.key
  SSLCACertificateFile /home/web/example1_certs/intermediate.crt



  DocumentRoot /www/example2
  ServerName www.example2.org

  #yes, in below, I'm using example1.com's certificate, which will throw a browser warning.. that's intentional

  SSLEngine on
  SSLProtocol all
  SSLCertificateFile /home/web/example1_certs/public.crt
  SSLCertificateKeyFile /home/web/example1_certs/private.key
  SSLCACertificateFile /home/web/example1_certs/intermediate.crt

Answer




  1. No you just need the vhost with the IP as in your example


  2. N/A

  3. No it wouldn't matter

  4. It depends if you want to host multiple domains on that IP.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?
Post a Comment
Read more

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,
Post a Comment
Read more

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able
Post a Comment
Read more