[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: converting my local site to be https only access



On Tuesday 02 May 2017 17:18:13 Jonathan Dowland wrote:

> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 04:42:04PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Humm, is this sounding like I should open up a fwd to port 443 on
> > this machine in dd-wrt? As it is, I am only NATing port 6309 to it
> > via the NAT menu.
>
> You will need to open another port up for HTTPS, yes, and 443 is the
> default. If you open up 443, then https://<your URI> will work for
> browsers, otherwise you'd need an explicit port e.g. https://<your
> URI>:1234, exactly the same as you have for your current site over
> HTTP, not using port 80.
>
Thanks for that, and I have the ideal number in mind, the 6309 is a clone 
of the 6809, until you flip a couple bits in an un-acknowledged control 
register.  Then it pipelines the instruction fetch, saveing a cycle, and 
grows a few more registers and instructions, some of which support 32 
bit data. Net result being that the os, rewritten to take advantage, 
Nitros9, which used to be os9, is nearly 2x faster, at the same old 
clock speed.

> So long as you intend for attempts to connect to your non-SSL HTTP
> site to be redirected to the HTTPS one, you will need two ports, as
> the HTTP site is still listening and serving requests, even if they
> are all redirects.
>
> (It might actually be technically possible to run HTTP and HTTPS on
> the same port using some kind of clever detection scheme to see which
> the client was using on connection, in the same way it is possible to
> multiplex HTTPS and SSH on the same port; but it's a sufficiently
> niché trick that I don't recommend trying it)

I've enough examples of Murphy around here already. :(

Thanks for clarifying that, Jonathan.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>


Reply to: