PHP Web Host - Quality Web Hosting For All PHP Applications $35/month $250/year (Unlimited) - $25/month - 200,000 impressions - Your Ad Could be Here - Click For Details
  Login or Register
 • Home • Downloads • Your Account • Forums • 

View next topic
View previous topic


Google
 
Web RavenPHPScripts (This Site)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
djmaze
Subject Matter Expert


Joined: May 15, 2004
Posts: 689
Location: http://tinyurl.com/5z8dmv

PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:24 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Hi all,

today our apache went on his knees with 99.9% CPU

Investigation revealed a heavy attack to contact.php (anywhere) to compromise e107 based websites.

Although our Dragonfly CMS doesn't have such file, Apache couldn't handle all requests fast enough.

More info:
Only registered users can see links on this board!
Get registered or login to the forums!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sixonetonoffun
Spouse Contemplates Divorce


Joined: Jan 02, 2003
Posts: 2499

PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:51 am Reply with quote Back to top

e107 fanboys went on the defensive. Not much to say on the topic but I know the server I'm hosted on hiccuped a little yesterday. Most likely the same sort of thing you experienced though my site wasn't the one getting clobbered with requests.
View user's profile Send private message
gregexp
The Mouse Is Extension Of Arm


Joined: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1497
Location: In front of a screen....HELP! lol

PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:19 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Hi Dj,

If I could, I'd make a few suggestions:

1, change from apf to csf(much more concise and supported firewall rules).

2, add mod_security to your apache build(if not already there).

3, add mod_prefork, which will allow you to limit the number of children able to be generated per connection.

If you tweak mod_prefork correctly and have csf enabled, each ip will have to make a number of connections in order to get any form of result from any attack.

By that time csf will catch them automatically for too many connections and block them.

mod_security is just a good idea.

now, I personally tweak the hell out of csf, and force it to not only block the ip via iptables, I also tell it to route block them.

route add {ip} reject
When you do this, the server no longer responds to their request at all.

When just done through iptables, the server replies with a "I can't talk to you" packet, thus still creating a 2 way communication.

With route blocking, the sending computer will get absolutely no reply(as if the server was offline), and then it will not be able to open a communication with the server, and no longer send requests.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
djmaze
Subject Matter Expert


Joined: May 15, 2004
Posts: 689
Location: http://tinyurl.com/5z8dmv

PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:19 am Reply with quote Back to top

Thanks gregexp, we will look into it!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:       
Post new topic   Reply to topic

View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forums ©
 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2011 by Raven

You can syndicate our news using the file xml

CSE HTML Validator Helped Clean up This Page! [Valid RSS] valid RSS 2.0 Valid robots.txt Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot

Website engines core code is © copyright by PHP-Nuke but has been heavily patched and modified by myself and others.
PHP-Nuke is a free software released under the GNU/GPL.


:: fisubice phpbb2 style by Daz :: PHP-Nuke theme by www.nukemods.com ::
:: fisubice Theme Modified by the RavenNuke™ Team ::

:: W3C CSS Compliance Validation :: W3C HTML 4.01 Transitional Compliance Validation ::

zerosum