11:39 a.m.
I just created a Fedora16 (i-26c60f44) instance on AWS. Then I did
su -l
yum install apache
everything went well.
I started apache using: service apache start
However I public DNS is not able to find the default page. I checked
my security group and it has http 80 access.
I read in a blog somewhere that with Fedora you have to make sure that
files are read? By default they are not - for apache installation? Is
this correct?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Sandeep
11:48 a.m.
I just created a Fedora16 (i-26c60f44) instance on AWS. Then I did
su -l
yum install apache
everything went well.
I started apache using: service apache start
However I public DNS is not able to find the default page. I checked
my security group and it has http 80 access.
Has the firewall of the instance itself also been updated to allow requests on port 80?
-Steve
I read in a blog somewhere that with Fedora you have to make sure
that
files are read? By default they are not - for apache installation? Is
this correct?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Sandeep
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
noon
Yes - the instance is associated with the "default" security group
and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 / http
--
Thanks,
Sandeep
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I just created a Fedora16 (i-26c60f44) instance on AWS. Then I did
> su -l
> yum install apache
>
> everything went well.
>
> I started apache using: service apache start
>
> However I public DNS is not able to find the default page. I checked
> my security group and it has http 80 access.
Has the firewall of the instance itself also been updated to allow requests on port 80?
-Steve
> I read in a blog somewhere that with Fedora you have to make sure
> that
> files are read? By default they are not - for apache installation? Is
> this correct?
>
> Please advise.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandeep
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
12:05 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Sandeep Dixit <sdixit(a)ohioedge.com> wrote:
Yes - the instance is associated with the "default"
security group
and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 / http
I think Steve was referring to the iptables firewall on Linux itself.
--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
12:07 p.m.
Yes - got it - after I replied I realized. Thank you - Steve/Jared!
Is there FC16 LAMP AMI for EC2?
--
Sandeep
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Sandeep Dixit
<sdixit(a)ohioedge.com> wrote:
> Yes - the instance is associated with the "default" security group
> and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 / http
I think Steve was referring to the iptables firewall on Linux itself.
--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
7:08 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Sandeep Dixit <sdixit(a)ohioedge.com> wrote:
Yes - got it - after I replied I realized. Thank you - Steve/Jared!
You are welcome!
Is there FC16 LAMP AMI for EC2?
No, but it's simple to take the existing AMIs and add a web server,
database, and scripting language to build out a LAMP stack.
--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
10:07 p.m.
On 2011-12-19 10:05, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Sandeep
Dixit<sdixit(a)ohioedge.com> wrote:
> Yes - the instance is associated with the "default" security group
> and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 / http
I think Steve was referring to the iptables firewall on Linux itself.
It is my understanding that EC2 images generally have their inbuilt
firewalls turned off because people are expected to use security groups
instead. Is this correct? If so, how can I help that happen for the
next Fedora release's EC2 images?
10:15 p.m.
Yes - that is correct - the instance is secured by EC2 security groups
so the fedora image should have its firewall turned off. The
configuration I am interested it (and I am sure tons of folks out
there) is apache2, jboss 5/6/7 and ajp_connector (that connect
apache2->jboss). I am using Apache Derby db as well.
--
Thanks,
Sandeep
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Garrett Holmstrom
<gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2011-12-19 10:05, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Sandeep Dixit<sdixit(a)ohioedge.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes - the instance is associated with the "default" security group
>> and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 / http
>
>
> I think Steve was referring to the iptables firewall on Linux itself.
It is my understanding that EC2 images generally have their inbuilt
firewalls turned off because people are expected to use security groups
instead. Is this correct? If so, how can I help that happen for the next
Fedora release's EC2 images?
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
11:27 p.m.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
It is my understanding that EC2 images generally have their inbuilt
firewalls turned off because people are expected to use security
groups instead. Is this correct? If so, how can I help that happen
for the next Fedora release's EC2 images?
For what it's worth, on the Amazon Linux AMI 2011.09, iptables is turned
on by default, but it is left empty.
[root@ip-10-190-217-157 ~]# chkconfig --list | grep iptables
iptables 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off
[root@ip-10-190-217-157 ~]# iptables -L
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
12:24 a.m.
El Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:07:31 -0800
Garrett Holmstrom <gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> escribió:
On 2011-12-19 10:05, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Sandeep
> Dixit<sdixit(a)ohioedge.com> wrote:
>> Yes - the instance is associated with the "default" security group
>> and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 /
>> http
>
> I think Steve was referring to the iptables firewall on Linux
> itself.
It is my understanding that EC2 images generally have their inbuilt
firewalls turned off because people are expected to use security
groups instead. Is this correct? If so, how can I help that happen
for the next Fedora release's EC2 images?
correct me if im wrong but i thought that the amazon security groups
only protects you from whats outside of amazons network. the hosts
firewall protects you from being attacked from inside of ec2.
Dennis
10:43 a.m.
On 2011-12-19 22:24, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
El Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:07:31 -0800
Garrett Holmstrom<gholms(a)fedoraproject.org> escribió:
> On 2011-12-19 10:05, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Sandeep
>> Dixit<sdixit(a)ohioedge.com> wrote:
>>> Yes - the instance is associated with the "default" security
group
>>> and the "decault" security group has a rule 0.0.0.0 - port 80 /
>>> http
>>
>> I think Steve was referring to the iptables firewall on Linux
>> itself.
>
> It is my understanding that EC2 images generally have their inbuilt
> firewalls turned off because people are expected to use security
> groups instead. Is this correct? If so, how can I help that happen
> for the next Fedora release's EC2 images?
correct me if im wrong but i thought that the amazon security groups
only protects you from whats outside of amazons network. the hosts
firewall protects you from being attacked from inside of ec2.
Hosts within a security group can communicate freely with one another.
Communication between hosts in different security groups is subject to
security group rules in the same way as that with the Internet at large.
Since security groups cannot be shared all instances in a given
security group belong to the same account.
4510
days inactive
4511
days old
10 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Garrett Holmstrom -
Jared K. Smith -
Max Spevack -
Sandeep Dixit -
Steve Gordon