Re: [Leaf-devel] YATALWI
Very interresting idea
I think that we could split the project in 3 parts
1. define a set of configurations files à la network.conf but
with ONLY shell variables definitions (maybe split into
smaller files like the RedHat sysconfig directory)
Those files could be sourced by ALL the init.d scripts
to get parameters values to configure the {deamons| packages}
2. use a system like you describe to allow the editing of those
configuration files through SSH
3. develop a web/ncurses interface around the SSH interface
Not a small project !!!
- Original Message -
From: "Scott C. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Etienne Charlier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Eric Wolzak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Leaf-devel] YATALWI
> Etienne:
>
> Heya. Over the last year, I pitched my company's
> 'echoWare' solution to a number of OEMs, including heavy-iron
> OEMS, SOHO-router OEMs, and garage-mode last-mile broadband
> wireless gateway startups. Everyone I've spoke with agrees
> it's a strong model for the future, but faces an enormous
> "adoption" problem: a Fortune-500 OEM simply *cannot* put
> anything into the box unless it's an industry standard. Put
> another way...even if a sh!tty, insecure, bloatware protocol
> becomes an industry standard, they don't just feel compelled
> to support it, they are *proud* to support it. It can be very
> frustrating: talk to them about a novel, lean, SSH-based
> remote-management architecture, and they ask for SNMP, UPnP,
> Passport, or 802.1X.
> Not that this surprises me. :) But the doubly
> frustrating part is that this resistance affects my ability
> to raise funds to support a development staff to actually
> release some code that could, who knows, someday actually
> become pervasive. Perhaps it's a Peter-principle of mass
> market products: they are forced into this awful state of
> standardized mediocrity.
>
>
>
> Anyhow.
> The idea behind echoWare is that you run an SSH
> service on the machine you want to administer, and exchange
> simple ascii directives to that machine to affect its
> configuration. You can make these directives as machine
> friendly as you want: importantly, the actual *user
> interfaces* is "filtered" by a remote web-server. So, the
> end user connects to this website, and that server opens an
> SSH connection back to the end-user's gateway, pulling out
> ascii config info, and turning it into an HTML picture. Only
> takes a second or two in our demo. End-user can now point
> and click to make configuration changes, which go "up" to
> the server over SSL, and back "down" to the gateway over
> SSH.
> The primary benefit is the "cost" of the software.
> The gateway only needs to run an SSH daemon (which usually
> comes from free), and an ascii parser, which bash and sudo
> handle well enough. Might be worthwhile to customize the
> shell, too, so that only a limited set of commands is
> available to the ASP server. Given this...you can load up
> all the "heavy lifting" (graphics, os-specific ifdef's,
> etc) on the server, which has the CPU, memory, and storage
> to spare.
>
> Anyhow, we call it echoWare here, and someday it'll
> actually move beyond the demo phase: I'm hoping to attach
> EchoWall 2.0 to this service. So instead of editing the
> echowall.conf file by hand, you'd connect to a website, tell
> it what services to enable, and it sends the sed commands
> into the box, and updates the echowall.rules file if needed.
> Very visual for the end-user, but very ascii for the gateway.
>
> Anyhow...hope this helps, somehow. Got something
> of a demo running if you'd like to kick the tires around.
> Got another meeting this week with a major vendor to talk
> about it some more. :)
>
> cheers,
> Scott
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Etienne Charlier wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since last year ( when I discovered LRP), I think that there was at
least
> > 3 or 4 threads about a web interface to a LEAF derivative.
> >
> > I would like to start a brainstorming on the feasability/usefullness of
> > a Web interface for the LEAF project.
> >
> > what people think about
> >
> > - usefullness
> > - would it be secure enough
> > - technologies to use ( scripting languages ,..)
> > - is there some exsiting project that could be reused ( I've heard about
> > Webmin)
> > - other secrets wishes that you have about LRP/LEAF
> >
> > happy brainstorming
> > Etienne Charlier
> >
> >
>
Re: [Leaf-devel] YATALWI
Etienne: Heya. Over the last year, I pitched my company's 'echoWare' solution to a number of OEMs, including heavy-iron OEMS, SOHO-router OEMs, and garage-mode last-mile broadband wireless gateway startups. Everyone I've spoke with agrees it's a strong model for the future, but faces an enormous "adoption" problem: a Fortune-500 OEM simply *cannot* put anything into the box unless it's an industry standard. Put another way...even if a sh!tty, insecure, bloatware protocol becomes an industry standard, they don't just feel compelled to support it, they are *proud* to support it. It can be very frustrating: talk to them about a novel, lean, SSH-based remote-management architecture, and they ask for SNMP, UPnP, Passport, or 802.1X. Not that this surprises me. :) But the doubly frustrating part is that this resistance affects my ability to raise funds to support a development staff to actually release some code that could, who knows, someday actually become pervasive. Perhaps it's a Peter-principle of mass market products: they are forced into this awful state of standardized mediocrity. Anyhow. The idea behind echoWare is that you run an SSH service on the machine you want to administer, and exchange simple ascii directives to that machine to affect its configuration. You can make these directives as machine friendly as you want: importantly, the actual *user interfaces* is "filtered" by a remote web-server. So, the end user connects to this website, and that server opens an SSH connection back to the end-user's gateway, pulling out ascii config info, and turning it into an HTML picture. Only takes a second or two in our demo. End-user can now point and click to make configuration changes, which go "up" to the server over SSL, and back "down" to the gateway over SSH. The primary benefit is the "cost" of the software. The gateway only needs to run an SSH daemon (which usually comes from free), and an ascii parser, which bash and sudo handle well enough. Might be worthwhile to customize the shell, too, so that only a limited set of commands is available to the ASP server. Given this...you can load up all the "heavy lifting" (graphics, os-specific ifdef's, etc) on the server, which has the CPU, memory, and storage to spare. Anyhow, we call it echoWare here, and someday it'll actually move beyond the demo phase: I'm hoping to attach EchoWall 2.0 to this service. So instead of editing the echowall.conf file by hand, you'd connect to a website, tell it what services to enable, and it sends the sed commands into the box, and updates the echowall.rules file if needed. Very visual for the end-user, but very ascii for the gateway. Anyhow...hope this helps, somehow. Got something of a demo running if you'd like to kick the tires around. Got another meeting this week with a major vendor to talk about it some more. :) cheers, Scott On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Etienne Charlier wrote: > Hi, > > Since last year ( when I discovered LRP), I think that there was at least > 3 or 4 threads about a web interface to a LEAF derivative. > > I would like to start a brainstorming on the feasability/usefullness of > a Web interface for the LEAF project. > > what people think about > > - usefullness > - would it be secure enough > - technologies to use ( scripting languages ,..) > - is there some exsiting project that could be reused ( I've heard about > Webmin) > - other secrets wishes that you have about LRP/LEAF > > happy brainstorming > Etienne Charlier > > > - Original Message - > From: "Eric Wolzak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Etienne Charlier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] thttpd CGI Forms for administrating Firewall > through browser > > > > Hi Etienne, Sandro and the rest of the list > > > > > > I'd be happy to contribute to a web interface for LEAF > > > > If there are more people interested, we could join our efforts :=) > > > Here are some ideas > > > > > > First of all, the combinaison LRP/Kernel 2.4/Shorewall is not yet very > > > common in > > > the LRP world and I can understand the lack of feedback Eric got about > his > > > web interface. > > I think you ve got a point there. > > > > > > I think that allowing editing existing files through the web interface > is a > > > lot of work > > > with a very small ROI, an applet java allowing ssh access could do the > job > > > > > This is what i normally use myself, but I thought that there is some > > interest to do it with a webinterface. ( a "concurrent product" > > fli4l.de" uses a windows programm as a frontend) > > > IMHO, What we need is a higher level interface ( Like seawall, you have > a > > > few > > > simple configuration files and a lot of work done with the data in those > > > files) > > That was exactly what I liked about shorewall > > > > > I think we could design the web interface as an editor modifying a big > f
[Leaf-devel] YATALWI ( Yet Another Thread About Leaf Web Interface)
Hi, Since last year ( when I discovered LRP), I think that there was at least 3 or 4 threads about a web interface to a LEAF derivative. I would like to start a brainstorming on the feasability/usefullness of a Web interface for the LEAF project. what people think about - usefullness - would it be secure enough - technologies to use ( scripting languages ,..) - is there some exsiting project that could be reused ( I've heard about Webmin) - other secrets wishes that you have about LRP/LEAF happy brainstorming Etienne Charlier - Original Message - From: "Eric Wolzak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Etienne Charlier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] thttpd CGI Forms for administrating Firewall through browser > Hi Etienne, Sandro and the rest of the list > > > > I'd be happy to contribute to a web interface for LEAF > > > If there are more people interested, we could join our efforts :=) > > Here are some ideas > > > > First of all, the combinaison LRP/Kernel 2.4/Shorewall is not yet very > > common in > > the LRP world and I can understand the lack of feedback Eric got about his > > web interface. > I think you ve got a point there. > > > > I think that allowing editing existing files through the web interface is a > > lot of work > > with a very small ROI, an applet java allowing ssh access could do the job > > > This is what i normally use myself, but I thought that there is some > interest to do it with a webinterface. ( a "concurrent product" > fli4l.de" uses a windows programm as a frontend) > > IMHO, What we need is a higher level interface ( Like seawall, you have a > > few > > simple configuration files and a lot of work done with the data in those > > files) > That was exactly what I liked about shorewall > > > I think we could design the web interface as an editor modifying a big file > > ( config.web) > > containing shell variables definitions and a few scripts which process > > configuration files > > templates, replacing the variables in the templates by the actual values > > from config.web and > > write actual configuration files in the right place. > That is kind of the way the eigerstein was setup. > A problem is usually the multiple different lrp packets. > If we could create a small yet complete interface in the packages > then the "central editfile could take this and return them at the > appropiate moment" ( sounds kind of complicated ;)) > > example: the local interface ip address ( 192.168.1.254) is used in a lot > > of configuration > > files. the web interface should be able to modify this value "everywhere" > > > > It should be easy to add "modules" to the web interface ( a set of pages and > > a set of templates) > > those pages and templates could be stored in the .LRP files or in separate > > packages (with another > > file extension). > > > I think that is a good approach > > now a few questions: > > > > - Should the interface be usable with the floppy version of a LEAF-like > > distribution > I personally would like it that way. > > ( https ? to allow remote management isnt't it too big ?) > > > > - Should we try to reuse something exisitng or build from scratch ? > I think it is a good idea to complete the concept and after that look > at how much we can use from existing files and how much has to > be created new. > > > > - Could we build our interface so that we could derive from it a set of web > > pages or a set of scripts > > using the dialog command ( being usable from the text console ) > > > > > - how to permit customizations in the templates outside of the web interface > > ( to allow > > modifications not ( yet ) possible from the web interface ?? > I think about it :=) > > > > - I think that it's a big project but it should be possible > > > > PS: Maybe we could move on the leaf-devel list or elsewhere ?? > > > I Think it is a good idea to move to the leaf-devel list. Perhaps > change the subject a bit. > > Regards > > Etienne Charlier > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Regards to Belgium :) > > Eric Wolzak > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/ericw > > > > ___ > Leaf-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
