I just noticed that nobody's signatures are showing on their posts. Not sure when it started or why, hopefullyit's justa temporary quirk and not a sign that the board is beginning to deteriorate.
Edited by: Don Wassall
CF Board Problems
- Thread starter Don Wassall
- Start date
Active topics isn't working right either. The same two problems are happening with the board over at anu.org, which is the same software. I'm not sure what that means or if anything can be done about it.
And now after a thread is posted in, it doesn't automatically go to the top of the forum as the most recently posted in thread like it should. Some strange things are going on. . .
Technical support is aware of the problems. Hopefully the board will be running smoothly again within 24 hours. We may have been hacked but I don't know that for sure at this time.
white is right
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 10,223
I have seen this before on other boards. Sometimes the board is down for a day and everything is fine. Other times the board completely crashes and it's back to ground zero....
PhillyBirds
Mentor
white is right said:I have seen this before on other boards. Sometimes the board is down for a day and everything is fine. Other times the board completely crashes and it's back to ground zero....
Positive thoughts!
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
Hopefully everything will be ok. I've never seen a board do like this before, but then again, I've only posted periodically on a few other boards.
whiteathlete33
Hall of Famer
I was wondering why there were so little posts today.
I'm informed it should be back to normal tomorrow.
Jimmy Chitwood
Hall of Famer
i hope so, Don. this is just too messed up.
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
It seems to be working better for me right now.
There's still glitches -- signatures appear sometimes and disappear other times. In forums like Boxing and NBA the posts are still in the wrong order.
If anyone notices other problems please post them in this thread. Thanks.
If anyone notices other problems please post them in this thread. Thanks.
PhillyBirds
Mentor
It looks like everything seems to be straightened out now.
Gi-15
Mentor
I'm still unable to change my avatar and get this message when I try to upload a new one :
SoftArtisans.SAFile.1 error '80070005'
Creation of cached file failed. Please check the NTFS permissions for the directory path "e:\users\castefootball.us\public_html\forum\uploads\Gi15". This directory requires Read, Write and Delete permissions by the anonymous user ( NT account: IUSR_computername ) and/or by your authenticated users.Access is denied.
SoftArtisans.SAFile.1 error '80070005'
Creation of cached file failed. Please check the NTFS permissions for the directory path "e:\users\castefootball.us\public_html\forum\uploads\Gi15". This directory requires Read, Write and Delete permissions by the anonymous user ( NT account: IUSR_computername ) and/or by your authenticated users.Access is denied.
Gi-15 said:
I have no idea what that error message means. Maybe someone else can help.
I don't think this is related to yesterday's problems. My experience with avatars is that they have to be small to be accepted by the board software when trying to successfully download one. What I've done the past couple of years is go to Google images, find the picture of an athlete I want, and save the "thumbnail" image of it that initially comes up as the one I then download as my avatar for the board.
Extra Point
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 6,289
The like function is not working. I don't know if it's a change in the board or a glitch.
I, personally, liked the like function.
I, personally, liked the like function.
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 6,096
Same problem here.
I saw pros and cons in the like function, but decided the cons outweighed the pros. The like function was built into the new forum software when we switched to it two years ago. I tried to disable it myself but couldn't figure out how to do it so finally had the webmaster do it.
The CF boards existed for 12 years without a like function, it shouldn't be much of a transition to get used to the "old school" way again.
ThePhilosopher
Mentor
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,779
First off,thanks for all you do for us Don!
I was wondering if transmitting all data over HTTPS would be a better practice in general.While nothing is broken,LetsEncrypt's SSLs are free,so I think it makes sense to use one.
Thanks for reading!
I was wondering if transmitting all data over HTTPS would be a better practice in general.While nothing is broken,LetsEncrypt's SSLs are free,so I think it makes sense to use one.
Thanks for reading!
Sorry but as an IT layman, I don't know what you're suggesting here. Can you rephrase it so I understand better, or PM me if you want. . .
ThePhilosopher
Mentor
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,779
I'll try to explain here,for the benefit of any others who are curious.Here's the link in your Signature:
http://americanfreedomunion.com/
Note the protocol being used - HTTP.So when someone clicks on that link,first his PC performs a DNS lookup on his ISP's DNS server(think of it as a phonebook),which redirects that request to the server(which is identified by its IP address) where the site is hosted.
After this,the page loads in the browser of the user,a process during which all the elements like text,images are transmitted in plaintext form from the host server to the user's device.The problem here is that exactly what is being transmitted can be read and stored by all intermediates in between like many datacenters and the users ISP,and of course the datacenter where the Host server itself is located.
So if I went to read the story titled "‘Global Warming’ Cult Leader Al Gore: ‘Bitter Cold’ is ‘Exactly What We Should Expect From the Climate Crisis’",everyone upstream of my connection can see that I am doing so,if they intend do with little effort.This is dangerous because they can even see which username is mine when I log in and even passwords can be analyzed similarly,plus its obviously unsafe on public networks.
On the other hand,a HTTPS connection encrypts all the data between the host server and the user device,and all the intermediaries mentioned above will only be able to see that I visited American Freedom Union(because of the DNS request) and that so many MBs of data were transmitted.They have no clue if the data "downloaded" was a page load or an actual download(of say,a PDF) etc. as they cannot read it because encryption is foolproof.Most important they have clue which page I read etc. and my username,password is out of their reach.Even The only entity with any chance to collect user data in this scenario would be the datacenter,where the host server is located.
Take youtube as an example.If I could use it without HTTPS,my ISP,a myriad of datacenters could see that I listened to black metal videos,with the exact details of which obscure MVs I watched.They would also know that I comment "The Goyim Know" under quite a few videos.They would know my username,and if the webmaster is lousy,my password too.But as youtube transfers all data over HTTPS,all they can now see is that I visited the site,spent so much time on it and that X MB of data was transferred from their server to mine.
Hence its always a good practice to use HTTPS when possible.Coming to "Lets Encrypt",its a free,open-source SSL authority.SSL is the "certificate",the thing you need to apply the HTTPS protocol to your site.Its really easy to do,and should be a minute's work for a seasoned web admin,and maybe 5 minutes work for a newbie,thanks to some well-written idiot-proof guides out there.
Hope I did a good job of explaining things.
http://americanfreedomunion.com/
Note the protocol being used - HTTP.So when someone clicks on that link,first his PC performs a DNS lookup on his ISP's DNS server(think of it as a phonebook),which redirects that request to the server(which is identified by its IP address) where the site is hosted.
After this,the page loads in the browser of the user,a process during which all the elements like text,images are transmitted in plaintext form from the host server to the user's device.The problem here is that exactly what is being transmitted can be read and stored by all intermediates in between like many datacenters and the users ISP,and of course the datacenter where the Host server itself is located.
So if I went to read the story titled "‘Global Warming’ Cult Leader Al Gore: ‘Bitter Cold’ is ‘Exactly What We Should Expect From the Climate Crisis’",everyone upstream of my connection can see that I am doing so,if they intend do with little effort.This is dangerous because they can even see which username is mine when I log in and even passwords can be analyzed similarly,plus its obviously unsafe on public networks.
On the other hand,a HTTPS connection encrypts all the data between the host server and the user device,and all the intermediaries mentioned above will only be able to see that I visited American Freedom Union(because of the DNS request) and that so many MBs of data were transmitted.They have no clue if the data "downloaded" was a page load or an actual download(of say,a PDF) etc. as they cannot read it because encryption is foolproof.Most important they have clue which page I read etc. and my username,password is out of their reach.Even The only entity with any chance to collect user data in this scenario would be the datacenter,where the host server is located.
Take youtube as an example.If I could use it without HTTPS,my ISP,a myriad of datacenters could see that I listened to black metal videos,with the exact details of which obscure MVs I watched.They would also know that I comment "The Goyim Know" under quite a few videos.They would know my username,and if the webmaster is lousy,my password too.But as youtube transfers all data over HTTPS,all they can now see is that I visited the site,spent so much time on it and that X MB of data was transferred from their server to mine.
Hence its always a good practice to use HTTPS when possible.Coming to "Lets Encrypt",its a free,open-source SSL authority.SSL is the "certificate",the thing you need to apply the HTTPS protocol to your site.Its really easy to do,and should be a minute's work for a seasoned web admin,and maybe 5 minutes work for a newbie,thanks to some well-written idiot-proof guides out there.
Hope I did a good job of explaining things.
Thanks, I'll run it by my webmaster and see what he thinks. The problem as always is money, unless what you're talking about can be done for free or at very little cost.
BTW, there's no log-in, username or pw needed to see material on the American Freedom Union site. But I do understand trying to make one's browsing as untraceable as possible. It's no concern of the government what we do or think. Wish I had a lot more IT knowledge.
BTW, there's no log-in, username or pw needed to see material on the American Freedom Union site. But I do understand trying to make one's browsing as untraceable as possible. It's no concern of the government what we do or think. Wish I had a lot more IT knowledge.
I would like this post if I could.
