LC

My feedback

  1. 16 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Mail  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  2. 83 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Web  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC commented  · 

    Nearly all of the things we've voted for in the past are.... still not being provided yet by Plesk. However, there's no real reason why Plesk couldn't make this available in Obsidian, by the time it reaches 'General Release' status. Hopefuly, without the 'Advisor' HTTP/2 related display bug that's still present in Onyx though.

    LC supported this idea  · 
  3. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  4. 97 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    12 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC commented  · 

    As we currently understand it, Onyx will not be re-worked to support TLSv1.3, but feel free to re-verify this yourself

    The only "official" TLSv1.3 option will be Obsidian (which at the time of writing, is still a long way from being made a Plesk stable release).

    Ubuntu 18.04.2 'appears to be' the first LTS OS to provide OpenSSL 1.1.1 by default now, but all the others will follow.

    If all the other LTS O/S only follow AFTER Obsidian is officially released by Plesk, then arguably (!) the current Plesk policy makes sense. If they follow BEFORE Obsidian is officially released by Plesk, then that policy, has been shot to bits and must be revised ASAP.

    Meantime, don't hold your breath waiting for TLSv1.3 on Onxy 17.5.3 or 17.8.1, especially if you're using Ubuntu 18.04 LTS because at present, as it's a case of "...here's what you already have, but cannot use when using Plesk Onxy..." :o((

  5. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Databases  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  6. 138 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    open discussion  ·  36 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » DNS  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  7. 156 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    47 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Plesk (general)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  8. 81 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    15 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC commented  · 

    Elsewhere... In a recent Plesk reply on a different matter ( https://bre.is/PlP0pGLwC ) the latest "estimated" release date for Plesk Onyx 17.9 has been given as Q4 / 2019....

    So in theory, that's the earliest date, that anybody who is happy with General Release status Plesk upgrades could concieve switching from Plesk 17.8 to 17.9 as opposed to this overdue feature being backported to 17.8

    For historical reasons, many will justifiably wait for the Late Adopter status Plesk upgrade anyway, which will be even longer...

    Assuming the Plesk posted reply is correct, THIS ALONE and regardless of all the other overwhelming data that's already been posted is sufficient reason for making 17.8 "catch up with the rest of the world" re: Fail2Ban and IPv6.

    @Admin Up To Date Plesk replies are very conspicuous by their absence on here now....

    LC commented  · 

    Further to @wahim's helpful post below

    Running Plesk 17.8.11 on Ubuntu 18.04.* (as we are) means that you are forced to use the earlier (out of date / non IPv6 ) version of Fail2Ban as a result... That's far from ideal and a long way behind where everyone should be now.

    A simple CLI check clearly shows, both the forced Plesk version and, the much later version, which is sat waiting in the distro-repo:

    ~# apt-cache policy fail2ban
    fail2ban:
    Installed: 1:0.9.6-ubuntu18.04.18061312
    Candidate: 1:0.9.6-ubuntu18.04.18061312
    Version table:
    *** 1:0.9.6-ubuntu18.04.18061312 500
    500 http://autoinstall.plesk.com/ubuntu/PSA_17.8.11 bionic/extras amd64 Packages
    100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
    0.10.2-2 500
    500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/universe amd64 Packages
    500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/universe i386 Packages
    ~#

    The Ubuntu distro-repo versions are all clearly shown here:
    https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=fail2ban

    With the 18.04.* download and related packages page shown here:
    https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/fail2ban

    If using an OS other than Ubuntu 18.04 with Plesk 17.8.11, obviously you will need to check other sources for all the correct data.

    Finally, the opening section of the Fail2Ban Changelog (which commences with an old version release but one that is still ahead of the current Plesk release) is pretty self-explanatory:

    Fail2Ban: Changelog
    ===================

    ver. 0.9.8 (2016/XX/***) - wanna-be-released
    -----------

    0.9.x line is no longer heavily developed. If you are interested in
    new features (e.g. IPv6 support), please consider 0.10 branch and its
    releases.

    https://github.com/fail2ban/fail2ban/blob/master/ChangeLog

    LC commented  · 

    All the previous commments posted here are both valid and self-explanatory. The comment that refers to "voting twice for the same request" is extremely relevant. Plesk should never have conveniently opted for "...only available via our latest preview software". That's more like avoidance than actively providing a solution. All 17.8 Plesk customers RIGHTLY wanted this change / update a very long time ago. @Admin, please confirm that this IS going to happen, as opposed to leaving it sat here with zero updates or additional information being provided. Thanks!

    LC commented  · 

    Fully support all the previous very valid comments.

    One additional minor point on this. You have been able to use IPv6 addresses as valid inputs here: https://**YourFQDN**:8443/admin/control-panel-access/list for some time now, which is great in terms of added security (i.e. controlling access to the Plesk Panel itself - we're on 17.8.11)

    However, to have effective IPv6 address verification in one security area, but completely absent in another and the latter being of a much higher, more frequent security risk, is just plain wrong in our view.

    It shoud just be a "...when will it will be backported?" question, not an "...IF it will be backported" dilemma!

    LC supported this idea  · 
  9. 99 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    open discussion  ·  15 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Mail  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  10. 16 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 
  11. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    open discussion  ·  3 comments  ·  Feature Suggestions » Web / PHP  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    LC supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base