Require all denied has no effect. Require all allowed, worksApache2 & .htaccess : Apache ignoring...
Do black holes violate the conservation of mass?
Can I negotiate a patent idea for a raise, under French law?
Why does this boat have a landing pad? (SpaceX's GO Searcher) Any plans for propulsive capsule landings?
Are these two graphs isomorphic? Why/Why not?
What is this tube in a jet engine's air intake?
What will happen if my luggage gets delayed?
I can't die. Who am I?
Movie: boy escapes the real world and goes to a fantasy world with big furry trolls
School performs periodic password audits. Is my password compromised?
How do I raise a figure (placed with wrapfig) to be flush with the top of a paragraph?
Has a sovereign Communist government ever run, and conceded loss, on a fair election?
Rationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?
Why restrict private health insurance?
Trocar background-image com delay via jQuery
What do you call someone who likes to pick fights?
Finding the minimum value of a function without using Calculus
Cycles on the torus
-1 to the power of a irrational number
How do we create new idioms and use them in a novel?
How can I portion out frozen cookie dough?
Use Mercury as quenching liquid for swords?
What is the purpose of a disclaimer like "this is not legal advice"?
Boss Telling direct supervisor I snitched
Is it possible to clone a polymorphic object without manually adding overridden clone method into each derived class in C++?
Require all denied has no effect. Require all allowed, works
Apache2 & .htaccess : Apache ignoring AccessFile.htaccess has no effectApache2 “Require all granted” doesn't workWhat does Apache's “Require all granted” really do?How to deny everyone access except certain hosts and IPs with Apache 2.4?Specify which directores to look for .htaccess file.htaccess file is not working on Apache 2.4.12 and Windows Server 2008 R2.htaccess deny/allow rules denying folder, but not direct to filesMove htaccess rules to apache configuration files.htaccess: Allow all connections from local network, but require login for external
I have a website structure setup as follows, which I am trying to organize access levels for each but without specifying <Directory>
as that requires the structure to be fixed (aka, if i copy this to a different site, into a subfolder, it would require editing of all .htaccess to the new location).
/app/ - allow all, deny config/etc
/app/templates/ - deny all
/app/templates/mytheme/ - allow all for images, javascript, css, fonts only
/app/lib/ - deny all
I have tried implementing Apache2.4's new(ish) directive scheme:
/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf
... more stuff above ...
<Directory />
AllowOverride All
Require all denied
</Directory>
... more stuff below ...
And adding Require all allowed
to .htaccess
in the root of the application, while adding Require all denied
to .htaccess
in the folders I wish to deny access to.
The problem is Require all denied
seems to do absolutely nothing. I have seen reference to using the mod_auth_compat
or whichever library, but it appears to only be required for older versions of apache (v2.3).
I am using Apache 2.4 on Debian 8.
Previously, I would supply :
Order Allow, Deny
Deny from all
And then drop the following in folders which require access :
Allow from all
.. and where I need to allow only specific file type access,
<FilesMatch ".(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp|svg|css|less|sass|scss|js|ttf|woff|woff2|eot)$">
Allow from all
</FilesMatch>
According to apache's documentation, unexpected results may arise from mixing old and new declarations, and as such, I am only using new declarations. There are no stray .htaccess
files or *.conf
files loaded using the old declaration format for permissions - so this should work ?
Given the folder structure I laid out, and what is loaded in '/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf' (as that is where the "root" declaration is for AllowOverride [it doesn't seem to function when specifying AllowOverride All
inside the same format of declaration in the websites conf ( 000-default.conf )], could someone give some guidance or preferably a working solution to this problem.
.htaccess apache-2.4
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
I have a website structure setup as follows, which I am trying to organize access levels for each but without specifying <Directory>
as that requires the structure to be fixed (aka, if i copy this to a different site, into a subfolder, it would require editing of all .htaccess to the new location).
/app/ - allow all, deny config/etc
/app/templates/ - deny all
/app/templates/mytheme/ - allow all for images, javascript, css, fonts only
/app/lib/ - deny all
I have tried implementing Apache2.4's new(ish) directive scheme:
/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf
... more stuff above ...
<Directory />
AllowOverride All
Require all denied
</Directory>
... more stuff below ...
And adding Require all allowed
to .htaccess
in the root of the application, while adding Require all denied
to .htaccess
in the folders I wish to deny access to.
The problem is Require all denied
seems to do absolutely nothing. I have seen reference to using the mod_auth_compat
or whichever library, but it appears to only be required for older versions of apache (v2.3).
I am using Apache 2.4 on Debian 8.
Previously, I would supply :
Order Allow, Deny
Deny from all
And then drop the following in folders which require access :
Allow from all
.. and where I need to allow only specific file type access,
<FilesMatch ".(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp|svg|css|less|sass|scss|js|ttf|woff|woff2|eot)$">
Allow from all
</FilesMatch>
According to apache's documentation, unexpected results may arise from mixing old and new declarations, and as such, I am only using new declarations. There are no stray .htaccess
files or *.conf
files loaded using the old declaration format for permissions - so this should work ?
Given the folder structure I laid out, and what is loaded in '/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf' (as that is where the "root" declaration is for AllowOverride [it doesn't seem to function when specifying AllowOverride All
inside the same format of declaration in the websites conf ( 000-default.conf )], could someone give some guidance or preferably a working solution to this problem.
.htaccess apache-2.4
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
2
NOTE:Require all allowed
(copied from your question) is not proper 2.4. Should beRequire all granted
– Colt
Apr 18 '16 at 3:16
AlthoughRequire all allowed
would result in a 500 error, so I guess that must be a typo? (Or the code isn't being processed which could also explain why it "seems to do absolutely nothing?)
– MrWhite
Apr 18 '16 at 15:56
sorry, was exhausted when i wrote this. it was require all granted. since it's been a few days, i will testrequire all granted
to see if i was also sleepy when playing with .htaccess. UPDATE: Yup, I was sleepy.Require all granted
works perfectly. TY so much :)
– Kraang Prime
Apr 19 '16 at 15:58
add a comment |
I have a website structure setup as follows, which I am trying to organize access levels for each but without specifying <Directory>
as that requires the structure to be fixed (aka, if i copy this to a different site, into a subfolder, it would require editing of all .htaccess to the new location).
/app/ - allow all, deny config/etc
/app/templates/ - deny all
/app/templates/mytheme/ - allow all for images, javascript, css, fonts only
/app/lib/ - deny all
I have tried implementing Apache2.4's new(ish) directive scheme:
/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf
... more stuff above ...
<Directory />
AllowOverride All
Require all denied
</Directory>
... more stuff below ...
And adding Require all allowed
to .htaccess
in the root of the application, while adding Require all denied
to .htaccess
in the folders I wish to deny access to.
The problem is Require all denied
seems to do absolutely nothing. I have seen reference to using the mod_auth_compat
or whichever library, but it appears to only be required for older versions of apache (v2.3).
I am using Apache 2.4 on Debian 8.
Previously, I would supply :
Order Allow, Deny
Deny from all
And then drop the following in folders which require access :
Allow from all
.. and where I need to allow only specific file type access,
<FilesMatch ".(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp|svg|css|less|sass|scss|js|ttf|woff|woff2|eot)$">
Allow from all
</FilesMatch>
According to apache's documentation, unexpected results may arise from mixing old and new declarations, and as such, I am only using new declarations. There are no stray .htaccess
files or *.conf
files loaded using the old declaration format for permissions - so this should work ?
Given the folder structure I laid out, and what is loaded in '/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf' (as that is where the "root" declaration is for AllowOverride [it doesn't seem to function when specifying AllowOverride All
inside the same format of declaration in the websites conf ( 000-default.conf )], could someone give some guidance or preferably a working solution to this problem.
.htaccess apache-2.4
I have a website structure setup as follows, which I am trying to organize access levels for each but without specifying <Directory>
as that requires the structure to be fixed (aka, if i copy this to a different site, into a subfolder, it would require editing of all .htaccess to the new location).
/app/ - allow all, deny config/etc
/app/templates/ - deny all
/app/templates/mytheme/ - allow all for images, javascript, css, fonts only
/app/lib/ - deny all
I have tried implementing Apache2.4's new(ish) directive scheme:
/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf
... more stuff above ...
<Directory />
AllowOverride All
Require all denied
</Directory>
... more stuff below ...
And adding Require all allowed
to .htaccess
in the root of the application, while adding Require all denied
to .htaccess
in the folders I wish to deny access to.
The problem is Require all denied
seems to do absolutely nothing. I have seen reference to using the mod_auth_compat
or whichever library, but it appears to only be required for older versions of apache (v2.3).
I am using Apache 2.4 on Debian 8.
Previously, I would supply :
Order Allow, Deny
Deny from all
And then drop the following in folders which require access :
Allow from all
.. and where I need to allow only specific file type access,
<FilesMatch ".(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp|svg|css|less|sass|scss|js|ttf|woff|woff2|eot)$">
Allow from all
</FilesMatch>
According to apache's documentation, unexpected results may arise from mixing old and new declarations, and as such, I am only using new declarations. There are no stray .htaccess
files or *.conf
files loaded using the old declaration format for permissions - so this should work ?
Given the folder structure I laid out, and what is loaded in '/etc/apache2/conf-enabled/security.conf' (as that is where the "root" declaration is for AllowOverride [it doesn't seem to function when specifying AllowOverride All
inside the same format of declaration in the websites conf ( 000-default.conf )], could someone give some guidance or preferably a working solution to this problem.
.htaccess apache-2.4
.htaccess apache-2.4
asked Apr 15 '16 at 18:36
Kraang PrimeKraang Prime
14319
14319
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
2
NOTE:Require all allowed
(copied from your question) is not proper 2.4. Should beRequire all granted
– Colt
Apr 18 '16 at 3:16
AlthoughRequire all allowed
would result in a 500 error, so I guess that must be a typo? (Or the code isn't being processed which could also explain why it "seems to do absolutely nothing?)
– MrWhite
Apr 18 '16 at 15:56
sorry, was exhausted when i wrote this. it was require all granted. since it's been a few days, i will testrequire all granted
to see if i was also sleepy when playing with .htaccess. UPDATE: Yup, I was sleepy.Require all granted
works perfectly. TY so much :)
– Kraang Prime
Apr 19 '16 at 15:58
add a comment |
2
NOTE:Require all allowed
(copied from your question) is not proper 2.4. Should beRequire all granted
– Colt
Apr 18 '16 at 3:16
AlthoughRequire all allowed
would result in a 500 error, so I guess that must be a typo? (Or the code isn't being processed which could also explain why it "seems to do absolutely nothing?)
– MrWhite
Apr 18 '16 at 15:56
sorry, was exhausted when i wrote this. it was require all granted. since it's been a few days, i will testrequire all granted
to see if i was also sleepy when playing with .htaccess. UPDATE: Yup, I was sleepy.Require all granted
works perfectly. TY so much :)
– Kraang Prime
Apr 19 '16 at 15:58
2
2
NOTE:
Require all allowed
(copied from your question) is not proper 2.4. Should be Require all granted
– Colt
Apr 18 '16 at 3:16
NOTE:
Require all allowed
(copied from your question) is not proper 2.4. Should be Require all granted
– Colt
Apr 18 '16 at 3:16
Although
Require all allowed
would result in a 500 error, so I guess that must be a typo? (Or the code isn't being processed which could also explain why it "seems to do absolutely nothing?)– MrWhite
Apr 18 '16 at 15:56
Although
Require all allowed
would result in a 500 error, so I guess that must be a typo? (Or the code isn't being processed which could also explain why it "seems to do absolutely nothing?)– MrWhite
Apr 18 '16 at 15:56
sorry, was exhausted when i wrote this. it was require all granted. since it's been a few days, i will test
require all granted
to see if i was also sleepy when playing with .htaccess. UPDATE: Yup, I was sleepy. Require all granted
works perfectly. TY so much :)– Kraang Prime
Apr 19 '16 at 15:58
sorry, was exhausted when i wrote this. it was require all granted. since it's been a few days, i will test
require all granted
to see if i was also sleepy when playing with .htaccess. UPDATE: Yup, I was sleepy. Require all granted
works perfectly. TY so much :)– Kraang Prime
Apr 19 '16 at 15:58
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
See the upgrade guide with examples on the Require
Directive: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/upgrading.html
Deny from all
is nowRequire all denied
Allow from all
is nowRequire all granted
Plot twist: Apache 2.4 doesn't grant access to any directory by default and the order of evaluation has changed.
It was commonplace to block access to the filesystem in apache 2.2, with a Directory /
+ Require all denied
as you wrote. It should be removed now. It will backfire if it ever supersedes permissions in subdirectories.
See the documentation on merging authentication restrictions. It gets insanely complicated in practice. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_authz_core.html#authmerging
The Require all granted
in /app
is evaluated before the Require all denied
in the /app/lib
subdirectory. It looks like apache grants access upon meeting the first allowing rule so it's allowed. The whole tree got opened by the directive on the parent and there is not a lot you can do against that.
My advise is to not mix public and private content. It's completely unmanageable in practice. If it's served, it's meant to be served.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f770709%2frequire-all-denied-has-no-effect-require-all-allowed-works%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
See the upgrade guide with examples on the Require
Directive: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/upgrading.html
Deny from all
is nowRequire all denied
Allow from all
is nowRequire all granted
Plot twist: Apache 2.4 doesn't grant access to any directory by default and the order of evaluation has changed.
It was commonplace to block access to the filesystem in apache 2.2, with a Directory /
+ Require all denied
as you wrote. It should be removed now. It will backfire if it ever supersedes permissions in subdirectories.
See the documentation on merging authentication restrictions. It gets insanely complicated in practice. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_authz_core.html#authmerging
The Require all granted
in /app
is evaluated before the Require all denied
in the /app/lib
subdirectory. It looks like apache grants access upon meeting the first allowing rule so it's allowed. The whole tree got opened by the directive on the parent and there is not a lot you can do against that.
My advise is to not mix public and private content. It's completely unmanageable in practice. If it's served, it's meant to be served.
add a comment |
See the upgrade guide with examples on the Require
Directive: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/upgrading.html
Deny from all
is nowRequire all denied
Allow from all
is nowRequire all granted
Plot twist: Apache 2.4 doesn't grant access to any directory by default and the order of evaluation has changed.
It was commonplace to block access to the filesystem in apache 2.2, with a Directory /
+ Require all denied
as you wrote. It should be removed now. It will backfire if it ever supersedes permissions in subdirectories.
See the documentation on merging authentication restrictions. It gets insanely complicated in practice. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_authz_core.html#authmerging
The Require all granted
in /app
is evaluated before the Require all denied
in the /app/lib
subdirectory. It looks like apache grants access upon meeting the first allowing rule so it's allowed. The whole tree got opened by the directive on the parent and there is not a lot you can do against that.
My advise is to not mix public and private content. It's completely unmanageable in practice. If it's served, it's meant to be served.
add a comment |
See the upgrade guide with examples on the Require
Directive: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/upgrading.html
Deny from all
is nowRequire all denied
Allow from all
is nowRequire all granted
Plot twist: Apache 2.4 doesn't grant access to any directory by default and the order of evaluation has changed.
It was commonplace to block access to the filesystem in apache 2.2, with a Directory /
+ Require all denied
as you wrote. It should be removed now. It will backfire if it ever supersedes permissions in subdirectories.
See the documentation on merging authentication restrictions. It gets insanely complicated in practice. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_authz_core.html#authmerging
The Require all granted
in /app
is evaluated before the Require all denied
in the /app/lib
subdirectory. It looks like apache grants access upon meeting the first allowing rule so it's allowed. The whole tree got opened by the directive on the parent and there is not a lot you can do against that.
My advise is to not mix public and private content. It's completely unmanageable in practice. If it's served, it's meant to be served.
See the upgrade guide with examples on the Require
Directive: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/upgrading.html
Deny from all
is nowRequire all denied
Allow from all
is nowRequire all granted
Plot twist: Apache 2.4 doesn't grant access to any directory by default and the order of evaluation has changed.
It was commonplace to block access to the filesystem in apache 2.2, with a Directory /
+ Require all denied
as you wrote. It should be removed now. It will backfire if it ever supersedes permissions in subdirectories.
See the documentation on merging authentication restrictions. It gets insanely complicated in practice. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_authz_core.html#authmerging
The Require all granted
in /app
is evaluated before the Require all denied
in the /app/lib
subdirectory. It looks like apache grants access upon meeting the first allowing rule so it's allowed. The whole tree got opened by the directive on the parent and there is not a lot you can do against that.
My advise is to not mix public and private content. It's completely unmanageable in practice. If it's served, it's meant to be served.
answered Feb 3 at 23:54
user5994461user5994461
1,4021020
1,4021020
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f770709%2frequire-all-denied-has-no-effect-require-all-allowed-works%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
NOTE:
Require all allowed
(copied from your question) is not proper 2.4. Should beRequire all granted
– Colt
Apr 18 '16 at 3:16
Although
Require all allowed
would result in a 500 error, so I guess that must be a typo? (Or the code isn't being processed which could also explain why it "seems to do absolutely nothing?)– MrWhite
Apr 18 '16 at 15:56
sorry, was exhausted when i wrote this. it was require all granted. since it's been a few days, i will test
require all granted
to see if i was also sleepy when playing with .htaccess. UPDATE: Yup, I was sleepy.Require all granted
works perfectly. TY so much :)– Kraang Prime
Apr 19 '16 at 15:58