Cheshire Cat Computing

I'm trying to upgrade our routers2.cgi install from 2.09 to 2.18 and am pretty much there, but then I figured out that (using the exact same routers2.conf file) the graphs are being generated in the wrong directory.

/mrtg/mrtg.cfg calling lots of configs within
/mrtg/Cust1234/*.cfg
/mrtg/Cust2345/*.cfg
etc.

2.09 graphs are created in
/html/graphs/Cust1234/host.cfg-target-d-12.png

2.18 graphs are created in
/html/graphs/Cust1234host.cfg-target-d-12.png
(note the missing "/")

Because of the permissions on customers accessing other peoples graphs, this is breaking their access.

Is there a change I need to make in the routers2.conf file to fix this? I think it may just be a missing $pathsep in routers2.cgi as pretty much all the other hrefs are okay.

I have tried with and without trailing slashes but no luck. Any ideas?

The 2.18 graphs are appearing in the correct place - they are all supposed to be in the graphpath directory. The temporary filenames are constructed by taking the config filename including subpath, removing directory separators, and appending the various graph information. I think this has been the same for all versions of routers2.

The subdirectory should contain only archived graph images (if you have archiving enabled). This may be the source of the confusion.

You can set permissions on these files, though, by using rules like:

<Files Cust1234*.png>
require user cust1234
</Files>

in your apache .htaccess file as well as the various expiry rules.

I'm aware of this permissions problem but correcting it is harder than you'd think. In version 3.x of routers2 I'm planning to get rid of graphurl and have the images accessible only via the CGI (so as to be able to use the built-in authorisation) but this is a major change.

_________________
Steve Shipway
UNIX Systems, ITSS, University of Auckland, NZ
Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning... -- Isaiah 5:11

Oh, okay, so our old version was behaving incorrectly by placing the graphs in the same directories as the rrds? Not sure why/how we would have changed that from default.

Not sure how it may have happened. It may have been a bug in the way Routers2 used to handle the Directory[] directive, if you use this.

You shouldnt have your .rrd files under your web root, though. This is a security risk and not necessary

_________________
Steve Shipway
UNIX Systems, ITSS, University of Auckland, NZ
Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning... -- Isaiah 5:11