Gatsu

No, mohawk does not work properly on v2

You do know there is a difference between sftp and ftps right? sftp is using SSH SCP method and wouldn't be compatible with the windows side of the tcadmin hosting. FTPS is secured FTP and and is very possible. Follow the feature request here: Secure FTP

Right now with V2 it seems that FTP connections are sent just as plain FTP. There is no encryption in communications for any ftp transmissions. A simple solution to this would be adding another option for FTPS It would be a very simple matter to enable FTPS in the FTP backup option and any FTP transmissions. This would vastly improve the security of those with less noble intentions form trying to get in. Right now I am sure quite a few of us are using the task scheduler for database backups and if you send a backup to a remote location then having a secured method of transmission is paramount and would only take 15 min. We will first explain the FTP usages for normal users. Implementation of this type of feature would build upon the already implemented FTP structure and should only take a few hours of work. For Certificate usage the FTP servers could simply have their own self signed certificate (possible in mono and windows). For outgoing FTPS transmissions, implementation would really just take 15min. In the FTP backup task you could have the system auto accept self signed certs by adding a tag to the command line. and changing the syntax of the command that tcadmin sends. At that point all you would need to do is added another <option> tag in the form for the task scheduler web page and it could use the new syntax. Poof! 15min of work gets secured backups, and a few hours of work secures users and (we are assuming) server to server file transfers. Does anyone else see the merit in this suggestion? We would welcome feedback.

^A few posts back just type that in. What is the cache for and why does it need to take up 97% of our ram (16GB)?

agreed.

If you use the command listed above the ram is being cached. I'm not sure why but a fix would be nice.

Sorry to open an old thread but we have servers that have multiple IP's and we want the ports to be opened for that specific ip not across all of them. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -d $[ThisServer_IP] --dport $[ThisServer_GamePort] -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp -d $[ThisServer_IP] --dport $[ThisServer_GamePort] -j ACCEPT We wouldn't want a lot of ports left open after they cancel/leave so what could we do for removing this ports when the server is moved or deleted? I have looked most places and can't really find them. Anyone have any ideas?

This is also incorrect. It is set this way because the normal user that is created (tcadmin) cannot have any ports opened that are below 1024 or something close to that. Our main point is the the fact that it has to be yourdomain.com/interface/default/login.aspx when it should be yourdomain.com There are many reasons for this and not just because it looks better. For example currently if the user is somehow directed to just yourdomain.com/interface or yourdomain.com/interface/default it will redirect you to the loging page but with a call back url in the address bar. Once you log in you receive server errors. Being hotsers and sys admins we all know that is is simply a matter of going back to the original url, and you will have appeared logged in, but for the ignorant masses out there some of them will see that 500 error and simply conclude that your company is bad because the CP is broken. When in fact it was never your fault at all. That is just one example of why it is much better to have the root (domain.com) instead of how it is (domain.com/interface/default/login.aspx)

That is besides the point and a bit useless because you can to it better with ip tables. We are trying to find out why it would not be on port 80 and in the root when it is simple to do this in most environments? Edit: we worded this wrong. It is meant to convey that we did have the understanding of port 80 but not the root domain.

Linux is able to also handle port 80 The fact that we still can't use a control port that is at the domains/subdomain's root level (cp.domain.com instead of cp.domain.com:8880/Interface/Base/Login.aspx) is odd for this day and age. Also it is now on port 8880. This just adds to the confusion of some users when they want to remember a URL.

Has it been suggested yet or implemented that we would be able to emails as login details? Our in-site records show that 42% of individuals attempt to use an email as their username before realizing that they must use a standard username. This number is up from 21% from 4 years ago. Considering most of the web is heading toward the standard of having the users email be their login this would seem like a great choice with v2 As a transition into this effect maybe have the ability for users to login with either their username or email and the providers that wish can purely setup accounts with no username. let me know your thoughts.

It will also lead to happier customers. We would say that 90% don't want to recreate all of their channels, icons and other files that they have uploaded to the server (if you have ftp enabled). it really is a much better option.

Yes, We have spoken with them about it already, and they do bill you for 2 servers. They have a special billing system that only gauges the "Average" amount of slots used. For example, say you have 2 50 slot servers and you need to reinstall their server on the 15th of the month. if you have the proper uptime all month, you are only going to be billed for 2 25 slot servers even though both were 50 slots. Does this make sense? 1 server was up for half the month so it is only billed for half its size. The same goes for the other. Even then, having the permreset feature would eliminate that confusion as well, due to the fact that the unique ID and and server id remain the same... from what we understand of the permreset. So instead of making a whole new server it just resets the permissions and makes a new key.

Here is what we would choose. We have based them not off of what we would like most but what would be best for the beta, and we think that is best for everyone. Icons - This is a beta and even though we want to have it all done already it wont be. Allowing all the hosting companies out there fully customize and tweak their setup before final release is very important. Disk - This would be for more or less a function of security testing and redundancy. It wouldn't take that much for something like this to cause major problems so the longer we can all spot any possible bugs the better. Bandwidth - Same as above Support - In-cp support is not needed for a beta and should be one of the final things implemented in after all the functionality has been added. Shock - Would be super awesome to get this implemented and it would be our first choice but for the good of the "Beta" it is not. A single product generally shouldn't take priority of main functions especially since everyone does not use it.

no no, some clients just mess up their permissions in a major way. Sometimes they disable the ability to change their server groups, sometimes they do a module (quit) and other times they just F&%k it up. The thing is usually they do not want to lose all their channels and current users. Teamspeak has a query command that allows the resetting of permissions: "PERMRESET Restores the default permission settings on the selected virtual server and creates a new initial administrator token. Please note that in case of an error during the permreset call - e.g. when the database has been modified or corrupted - the virtual server will be deleted from the database. Permissions: b_virtualserver_permission_reset Syntax: permreset Example: permreset token=eKnFZQ9EK7G7MhtuQB6+N2B1PNZZ6OZL3ycDp2OW error id=0 msg=ok" By adding this simple command to a "Reset your server" button much like the reinstall your server that most game servers have this will reduce the workload on a lot of hosting providers. Also Luis sometimes some people lock themselves out of their server, lose administrator and have disabled the ability to use keys for the default group. They have some delusional fantasy that this is uber protection.