Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Hosting Security and Technology : FrontPage vs. FTP

[Ironlung]

Has anyone ever had problems with the permissions of FrontPage extensions if they use FTP after they have use FP to publish?

[Félix C.Courtemanche]

FPX (frontpage) must have everything in the directory set as the user nobody. That mean that if you crete a file that is not groupe overwritable and not world overwritable, FPX won't be able to overwrite it and generate errors. That is often the case with CGI scripts since the usual mode is 755 which prevent groupw write.

[spcover]

Felix,

I've no experience with Frontpage, but I had a friend who complained about getting cgi-scripts to work on his Frontpage site. He never did figure out what his problem was.

Your remarks made me remember this.

Can you tell me just how one gets cgi-scripts to work on a Frontpage site (Unix with Frontpage extensions)?

I'm sure one day a client of mine will want me to add something to his existing site and I'm afraid one day it'll mean putting a cgi-script on his Frontpage site.

Thanks in advance,

Sean

[Félix C.Courtemanche]

You actually want to use something else than already provided with FPX?
ehw... my advice... DROP FPX!!!!

Seriously, it bugs, its bad and it never works well. I suggest to upload the cgi with FTP, configure it by hand, delete fpx and use any other web design program out there

[JTY]

FPX isn't very secure either.

[webfors]

FPX are terrible. Some people think it's because they're on a Linux server, but that't not the case. I use to have all my clients on NT servers with FPX and I had even more problems.

FP likes to take control of the directory and sets permissions as it's wants to. You basically are giving up complete control of your account to FP once you decide to use it.

[inwks]

I agree. FPX tends to make the hidden directories full control to anonymous users, so if you have anonymous FTP access to the directory tree as well, malicious users can upload files for distribution (e.g. Warez). I was had a case where someone kindly uploaded a 600Mb CD Image for distribution of one of the sites I was managing. FPX went straight out the window!

[akashik]

Reminds me of a story... A few months ago I was redoing a site for an old client. Between sites they moved to another server, leaving it all to the admins, and not requesting user/pass etc as it 'wasn't important' to them Anyway once I'd completed the redesign of their site I asked for the user/pass so I could upload. They requested it from the server and was given a Frontpage way to upload. I wrote back saying I didn't use Frontpage.. They suggested I should get it as "We find it great way to keep our sites updated". I emailed them back again saying that was wonderful, BUT I wasn't going to go out and buy the product just to upload to their server.

Things stalled...

After a week or so I emailed them again, asking for the user/pass info (emailing it to the client of course so he could pass it on to me)... The client was doing much the same from his end. I did a whois search on the domain 'for fun' and discovered that the domain itself wasn't even *at* the server in question. An email to the listed server yielded a better result. Eventually (after the client rang this mystery server himself), we got a user/pass so I could upload the site - via good old ftp I might add.

It's all very shifty and it stinks, but client is happy, server is good (little downtime) and their biz is on the web and they can site back and let me do the work *lol*

The very odd part about it was the 'tech guy' at the original server in question really did seem unaware of this whole setup he's supposedly administering.

Greg Moore
http://www.akashik.net

[inwks]

Not really a FPX problem, but amusing none the less. ) I still use FP for development (handy for keeping menus in sync), but not FPX (refinding the joys of FTP)

[Jag]

FP -its an admin nightmare