[Scons-users] Wiki not working
Matthew Swabey
mattaw at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 15:27:23 EST 2014
If I could interject that if you are thinking of moving to a new system
please use httrack to freeze the current wiki into static html for
reference purposes and historical purposes. Effectively unhackable and
very low on resources apart from the space :)
Matthew
On 12/9/2014 2:41 PM, William Roberts wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de
> <mailto:tshortik at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> On 09.12.2014 19:57, Bill Deegan wrote:
>
> Dirk,
>
> The real problem is that this particular wiki spikes the CPU
> usage on our free server and if it stays too long too high
> cpu, they shut it down. Then we need to figure out if it was
> hacked (again) and if not convince them that it's safe to put
> back online.
>
> Got that now. Thanks for the additional info.
>
> The approveChanges is (unfortunately since it would be easier
> to solve as you suggest) a secondary issue.
>
> The options are:
> a) migrate to other wiki software (which we manage and run on
> same server, possibly open to the same problem)
> b) migrate to some other hosted solution (wiki on bitbucket,
> or other)
>
>
> FYI The default wiki on bitbucket is limited. The permissions are
> either Public (world writeable, world readbale think 0666) or Private
> (project members only, 0660). However, if its private, non-project
> members cannot even see it. I had this issue with using it and created
> a secondary site. Recently, Bitbucket supports Markdown in their
> README files and you can use that as a read only source of public
> information. Github doesn't seem to have this limitation. I am not
> sure that if you pay for bitbucket, if one gets different wiki
> permissions or capabilities.
>
>
> I'm heavily favoring b, as keeping said software secure and up
> to date is really a waste of all/any of our time at this
> point. Better to spend that time on SCons or other infrastructure.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> My gut feeling tells me that we'll get hacked either way...but if
> you have some more insight about how alternatives would be more
> secure, that's fine with me. I just didn't want to switch for the
> only reason of having a neglected approval queue, and that was my
> first impression. Sorry for the noise...
>
> Dirk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org <mailto:Scons-users at scons.org>
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> Respectfully,
>
> William C Roberts
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20141209/1497927a/attachment.html>
More information about the Scons-users
mailing list