Re: [Owncloud] Really big file upload

2012-06-09 Thread Diederik de Haas
On Sunday 10 June 2012 02:43:10 Tóth Ádám wrote: > df -h says: > > tmpfs 3.0G 0 3.0G 0% /lib/init/rw > tmpfs 3.0G 0 3.0G 0% /dev/shm The last part of the line specifies the mount point, so you haven't listed the size of /tmp. If it's not in the list, it's part of / If you do 'df -h /tmp/' you'l

Re: [Owncloud] Really big file upload

2012-06-09 Thread Tóth Ádám
Hi Emre, how did you do that? Did you do that on oc3 also? thx, Adam - Original Message - From: Emre Erenoglu Sent: 06/10/12 12:53 AM To: owncloud@kde.org Subject: Re: [Owncloud] Really big file upload On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Diederik de Haas < didi.deb...@cknow.org > wrote:

Re: [Owncloud] Really big file upload

2012-06-09 Thread Tóth Ádám
Thank you Diederik! df -h says: tmpfs 3.0G 0 3.0G 0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs 3.0G 0 3.0G 0% /dev/shm Do they count 6 GB altogether, or only 3 GB? Why do I have two tmpfs? (It's a hosted OpenVZ server. it has 6 GB of RAM). Is it possible to increase these values somehow? Recently I was able to upl

Re: [Owncloud] Really big file upload

2012-06-09 Thread Emre Erenoglu
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Diederik de Haas wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2012 23:56:36 Tóth Ádám wrote: > > Is it possible to allow big (e.g DVD iso) file uploads? > > Here is an article: > > http://code.google.com/p/sabredav/wiki/WorkingWithLargeFiles > > > > I still use 3.0.3, on Debian

Re: [Owncloud] Really big file upload

2012-06-09 Thread Diederik de Haas
On Saturday 09 June 2012 23:56:36 Tóth Ádám wrote: > Is it possible to allow big (e.g DVD iso) file uploads? > Here is an article: > http://code.google.com/p/sabredav/wiki/WorkingWithLargeFiles > > I still use 3.0.3, on Debian. Debian defaults to 20% of RAM for /tmp using tmpfs (use df -h to s

[Owncloud] Really big file upload

2012-06-09 Thread Tóth Ádám
Hi Frank, Is it possible to allow big (e.g DVD iso) file uploads? Here is an article: http://code.google.com/p/sabredav/wiki/WorkingWithLargeFiles I still use 3.0.3, on Debian. Thank you! Adam ___ Owncloud mailing list Owncloud@kde.org https://m

Re: [Owncloud] Cross-site request forgery protection

2012-06-09 Thread Matthew Dawson
On June 9, 2012 11:17:24 PM Frank Karlitschek wrote: > > On 09.06.2012, at 19:11, Matthew Dawson wrote: > > > On June 9, 2012 03:16:43 PM you wrote: > I thought about simpler solutions but they all have problems so I think > we > have to do the real thing which means a lot of cha

Re: [Owncloud] Cross-site request forgery protection

2012-06-09 Thread Frank Karlitschek
On 09.06.2012, at 19:11, Matthew Dawson wrote: > On June 9, 2012 03:16:43 PM you wrote: I thought about simpler solutions but they all have problems so I think we have to do the real thing which means a lot of changes in ownCloud. >>> Well true, maybe there could be some generic measur

Re: [Owncloud] Calendar Sharing

2012-06-09 Thread Thomas Tanghus
On Saturday 09 June 2012 13:12 Michael Gapczynski wrote: > I'm working on a sharing api that apps will be able to use that can handle > permissions such as these. I'm hoping to finalize a few things this next > week before I push it to a branch on gitorious. I'd like to suggest to > switch calendar

Re: [Owncloud] Calendar Sharing

2012-06-09 Thread Melvin Carvalho
On 9 June 2012 18:31, Georg Ehrke wrote: > Hi, > I've got two questions about the rights, a user a calendar was shared > with, should have. > Example: > User A shares a calendar with user B. > 1. Should user B be able to add new entries to the calendar? > > 2. Should user B be able to delete cale

Re: [Owncloud] Calendar Sharing

2012-06-09 Thread Michael Gapczynski
On Saturday, June 09, 2012 05:59:06 PM Tom Needham wrote: > On 9 Jun 2012, at 17:31, Georg Ehrke wrote: > > Hi, > > I've got two questions about the rights, a user a calendar was shared > > with, should have. Example: > > User A shares a calendar with user B. > > 1. Should user B be able to add new

Re: [Owncloud] Cross-site request forgery protection

2012-06-09 Thread Matthew Dawson
On June 9, 2012 03:16:43 PM you wrote: > >> I thought about simpler solutions but they all have problems so I think we > >> have to do the real thing which means a lot of changes in ownCloud. > > Well true, maybe there could be some generic measures taken to help protect > > against simple mistake

Re: [Owncloud] Calendar Sharing

2012-06-09 Thread Tom Needham
On 9 Jun 2012, at 17:31, Georg Ehrke wrote: > Hi, > I've got two questions about the rights, a user a calendar was shared with, > should have. > Example: > User A shares a calendar with user B. > 1. Should user B be able to add new entries to the calendar? > > 2. Should user B be able to delete

[Owncloud] Calendar Sharing

2012-06-09 Thread Georg Ehrke
Hi, I've got two questions about the rights, a user a calendar was shared with, should have. Example: User A shares a calendar with user B. 1. Should user B be able to add new entries to the calendar? 2. Should user B be able to delete calendar entries? Cheers, Georg Ehrke _

Re: [Owncloud] Cross-site request forgery protection

2012-06-09 Thread Florian Rüchel
Hi Frank, the same thing Tom wrote I also wanted to give you. And I want to announce myself as a volunteer on the implementation. I am a student of IT-Security and I have worked to some degree on protection (or discovering unprotected calls) so I could be of some help. I will get back to you as

Re: [Owncloud] Cross-site request forgery protection

2012-06-09 Thread Thomas Müller
FYI: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF) https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_CSRFGuard_Project https://github.com/foxbunny/CSRF4PHP Tom Frank Karlitschek schrie

Re: [Owncloud] Cross-site request forgery protection

2012-06-09 Thread Frank Karlitschek
On 08.06.2012, at 20:47, Matthew Dawson wrote: > On June 8, 2012 04:42:22 PM Frank Karlitschek wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> we have to do something in ownCloud against the CSRF thread. We have some >> protection in some areas already but I think we need a general solution >> here. We have to c