Wait, the *Secure* Socket Layer in HTTPS can be insecure? Yep, in the age of total surveillance, it can.

Good news: To the best of our knowledge, there is also secure SSL still. (But don't trust me on these instructions with your life or the life of your website users – you have to become your own expert!). The considerations below take into account both secrecy and server performance. The tips are in decreasing order of importance.

(1) Your users need an uncompromized computer!

Because if we'd start with compromized hardware, all is lost anyway. The malware can simply grab your communications from the browser screen and send it to the surveillance body. No need to break SSL, then. But of course, that would also be simple: that malware would also have an easy job to hide man-in-the-middle attacks by preventing the tools mentioned below from detecting SSL certificate changes.

The best first tip for having a non-compromized computer is having two: one for daily work, one for only the high-value communications. And you would not go near any threat on the Internet with the second one.

(2) Enforce HTTPS for all connections

For performance reasons, you might think about using SSL connections only for login (password transmission), or at least only while users are logged in (also protecting the content they post, and the session cookie which else can be used for session hijacking). However, surveillance can derive lots of metadata, behavioral data etc. also from looking at what people read while not being logged in. With proper SSL speed optimization, the server load of enforcing SSL everywhere should be manageable.

(3) Throw out insecure SSL cipher suites

Configure your webserver to not use:

  • the old utmost crap "export" cipher suites
  • plain DES (triple DES is ok though)
  • RC2
  • RC4 (which is kind of broken)

See the source for these recommendations. Note: The SSL Labs SSL Test is a nice site to check if your configuration works as intended.

From the remaining ones, all ciper suites that use at least 128 bit keys for symmetrical keys are ok. This is roughly equivalent to the security of 3072 bits RSA keys [source, p. 64], which are a sufficient protection against brute force attacks even beyond 2030 (as we will see below). Which means, encrypted data recorded now could only be broken some time after 2030. This is further protected by the fact that the symmetrical keys are only used for one SSL session, and using brute force attacks to decrypt one such small session from 20+ years ago is almost certainly not worth the effort in 2040 or so.

In a few years, when all browsers will support higher grade AES cipher suites and so on, you would of course switch to only allow at least 192 or 256 bits of security. Which is equivalent to 7680 resp. 15360 bit RSA keys [source, p. 64] and comes at relatively neglible performance costs of needing about 30% more CPU time for the same data throughput [source].

(4) Use only DHE Perfect Forward Secrecy key cipher suites

We want to use perfect forward secrecy (PFS) cipher suites. PFS means: when the private key of the server is leaked at some time, recorded communication of the past still cannot be decrypted. It only allows the attacker to impersonate the server for negotiating keys for new sessions, until the SSL certificate expires (which is hopefully soon).

Here is how to configure your webserver for using PFS cipher suites.

However, not all PFS ciphers are the same. As Bruce Schneier writes: "Prefer conventional discrete-log-based systems over elliptic-curve systems; the latter have constants that the NSA influences when they can." [source] This means, use Diffie-Hellman key exchange (DHE) cipher suites, not Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman key exchange (ECDHE) [source]. The danger of weak ECDHE ciphers is that recorded, encrypted communication could be broken later with limited effort attacks (albeit only session by session). The downside of DHE, on the other side, is "only" that it is slower.

(If you really want to use ECDHE for performance reasons, offer it only with elliptic curves that are safe. I am not sure if browsers support any safe curves [see] or how to restrict what curves your OpenSSL installation will offer to the client [see]. Tell us in the comments when you find it out.)

(5) Always store your private key in encrypted form

Which should mean, store it in encrypted form. This will require you to enter a passphrase when restarting your webserver process. But assuming that your webserver is stable, this would only be done when you are at the server anyway. It is quite common practice to store the private key in plain text so that it is only readable by root, but that is a severe vulnerability that would allow a remote attacker or somebody with physical access to the server to do a man-in-the-middle attack that does not need a certificate change.

(6) Use a 2048 bit private key

Because 1024 bit RSA private keys are considered too weak already.

A 2048 bit RSA private key for your sever is however enough. You want to avoid a needlessly longer key because SSL handshake performance exponentially degrades with increasing key length [source; test results].

2048 bits are enough because: With only forward secrecy cipher suits available, a broken or compromized private key of the server only means that an attacker can impersonate the server from that moment on (that is, can do a man-in-the-middle attack without causing a SSL certificate change). But he can not decipher past recorded communications. So the key strength has only to be enough to prevent brute force attacks during the certificate's validity. Which means 2048 bits until 2030, and 3072 bits afterwards [source]. But keep the validity period short of course (say, a year).

(7) Let your users monitor for SSL certificate changes

The problem with powerful surveillance bodies is that they are powerful: it is credibly alleged that three letter agencies can deploy man-in-the-middle attacks effortlessly on large scales by having backdoors in consumer DSL routers [source]. This also allows to compromise SSL connections, as follows. The router usually acts as a DNS server, and forwards requests to DNS servers of the telecommunications provider. When enabled by the backdoor, this allows DNS requests to be deflected to another DNS server, resulting (for example) in a site with a fraudulent SSL certificate being served to you (that will forward to the real site, but monitor your communications) [source, p. 23].

Such an attack might use a different SSL certificate signed by the same Certification Authority (CA) – or a different CA, it does not really matter since browsers by default do not notify users when a site's CA changed. But after all, the certificaate is different, and that is how it can be detected. Because: they simply cannot use these man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL for anything beyond targeted operations [source]. When used permanently, the attacks would be detected for example by site owners who notice the difference between wha certificate their site should serve to the world and what they see when visiting it in their browser.

In any case, it means that we should assume the CA-based certification mechanism to be completely broken, and should not rely on it. Until it is going to be replaced with a distributed, reliable mechanism (maybe a PGP style trust network? or registering the public key / domain name pairs on the Namecoin blockchain?), we have to make do with verifying the SSL certificate yourself (see below), or where this is too much effort, by tracking certificate changes.

Tracking certificate changes provides a decent protection against man-in-the-middle attacks, since these require exchanging the certificate, as shown above. You should monitor both the differences from what certificate everone else sees (using the Perspectives Firefox plugin) and from what certificate you saw in the past (using the Certificate Patrol Firefox plugin). From practical experience, Certificate Patrol is however not useful on large websites (Google, Facebook Twitter etc.) since these tend to use multiple certificates, from multiple CAs, and exchange them frequently. This makes using Certificate Patrol annoying; it would be better to have an option in it that lets you switch it on only for sites that you "do not want to be surveilled on".

(8) Let your users verify the SSL public key themselves

It is alleged that three-letter agencies collude with Certification Authorities (CAs) to get a second, different certificate signed by them for every new one they sign [source, p. 23]. Which will allow the man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL explained above. It is not known if this extends to any CA outside the US (where they can be subpoenaed …). But for practical purposes, let's just assume that all CAs are compromised.

A HTTPS certificate merely says that a website's traffic goes to whoever controls the domain plus whoever controls the CA. Even worse: since browsers by default do not notify a user when the HTTPS certificate changed and the new comes from a different CA, without manual checks at each page load a user can never be sure if the traffic does not perhaps go to certain three-letter agencies, as it can be safely assumed that at least some CAs are controlled by three-letter agencies. So, while HTTPS certificates are still good enough to exclude ordinary criminals, they are not up against massive surveillance.

(Also of course, you cannot trust the CAs yourself: never let them generate the private key for you, or upload your private key to them. With that precaution, even using a CA that is controlled by a three-letter agency is not a problem. They do not get you server's private key, they just sign your server's public key to attest it belongs to your server. Which is a correct statement, and not affected by being compromised. The compromised CA could create a duplicate certificate for a spy agency's own private key, but whether they use that or one from a different CA is just a matter of taste since a browser does not warn users against CA changes.)

In practical terms: You may proceed using a certfificate from a compromised CA for your "normal" website visitors, while at the same time also warning everyone that the HTTPS CA scheme is broken and users should not rely on it, instead should verify the SSL public key themselves. Tell your users to not simply trust the CA certificate represented by a happy Firefox displaying a lock to them. Tell them to verify by themselves, at the first time using the site, that the certificate is the one issued by the site operators instead of possibly a man-in-the-middle. Together with being alerted about certificate changes (see above), this provides a very decent protection against man-in-the-middle attacks.

Verifying can be difficult, depending on the size of your user community, but as tracking SSL certificate changes is usually enough by itself it does not have to be a very thorough vaidation. So you have different options. Here are some proposals, by increasing security:

  • Publish the fingerprint of the correct SSL certificate on the same website.
  • In the signup message, include the SSL certificate's fingerprint. This protects against later, dynamic modification of your website content by attackers.
  • As above, but also sign the signup message with the organization's GPG key, and publish the GPG public key on keyservers.
  • As above, but let users manually verify your GPG public key fingerprint (and also the current SSL certificate fingerprint while you're at it). This can be done without personal meeting of business card handovers etc., simply by creating a video live link, making sure it's not a pre-recorded video (some talking …) and letting the site representative both speak and sign the finger print characters at the same time. This of course mandates that the site representative is well-known, ideally by having met in person before.

(9) Use a self-signed certificate

With the above technique of still using CA-certified public keys but warning users against trusting them, most users would not see or simpply not follow the warning. They can be forced to deal with untrustable certificates though if you simply use a self-signed certificate. It will cause the browser to promt users to add a security exception, so they will have to verify the certificate before doing so.

(10) Let your users monitor IP address changes

If an attacker can get hold of the server's original SSL private key, he can impersonate the server without the tools above detecting an SSL certificate change. However, a similar tool would detect an IP address change. And you would announce the IP address of your server, and changes to it, for users to verify them, in analogy to how you want them to verify the SSL certificate fingerprint above. (And when you're at it, you might even want to switch to a self-signed certificate that would then also include the IP address, for free. At least on a second, synonymous domain or subdomain, for the users who know what they are doing.)

(11) Exchange your SSL private key and certificate frequently

Not sure about this one. It seems better to invalidate a SSL private key after a month than a year, which will prohibit an attacker from going on for long with man-in-the-middle attacks using your original private key that are undetectable by the above SSL certificate change monitoring. However, it introduces a task for users to manually verify the fingerprint of a new SSL certificate every month or so. Which is unrealistic for nearly all public-facing websites. Also it might not be needed because a man-in-the-middle attack could still be detected by IP address change monitoring proposed above. (However maybe even IP addresses can be bent by the secret services? I just don't know.)

(12) Put your server at a secure location

Even if you have encrypted your private key as stored on the server, there is a chance that it might be read from a memory dump. Which can be obtained when having physical access to your machine, or remote access to the virtualization system if you are on a VPS host (virtual private host). So at least do not rent a server in a country where three-letter agencies have easy access to company secrets, and also don't host at large hosting companies. Ideally of course, place the server physically at your home. And there into an intrusion-protected room. With lots of concrete around. In your basement. But ahh well … sorry, now I became paranoid about it all 😛

This is an intellectual challenge: how to design a generic, many-to-many communication system that prohibits surveillance entities from proving that you (1) read some website or (2) contributed content to some website, even if they do (1) capture and analyze all traffic on the Internet and (2) can break all encryption that is used for many-to-many communication (practically mostly SSL, which might be broken in many cases by NSA using MITM attacks). The only capabilities that we assume here that the surveillance body does not have is (1) breaking encryption used for local-only storage, such as TrueCrypt and (2) breaking encryption used for one-on-one encrypted communication between parties who know each other personally (which is comparatively simple to achieve with PGP etc.). So we're only talking here about them treating you as part of the big mass of people (one of the many activists out there …), not being one of the select few for which they do "targeted access operations" to infect your computer by software or hardware …

Note that, as we assume that the surveillance body captures all Internet communication globally, Tor can no longer be considered secure as they can then do timig correlations on the whole Tor network at once and with that information (simplified by running some own Tor nodes …) de-anonymize its participants. (For that reason, we cannot use realtime two-way communication at all.)

So: here's my proposal from three hours of thinking on today's evening about this. I guess it's pretty wanky 🙂 Anyway, your feedback is welcome.

The basic idea is to hide reading the website steganographically in reading another unsuspicious website, and contributing to the website steganographically in a botnet infection (and by contributing from public wi-fi only). So the surveillance body would see you communicating, but you can plausibly deny reading and writing on that forbidden website; you just read a photo blog and had a spam virus infection … can happen, right? 😛

Part by part:

Deniable reading: steganographic site-in-a-site

This needs an unsuspicious "host website" with considerable data traffic for every user. For example a photography forum or even a porn site. Being used as a host site could be negotiated in secret with the operators (if you are an activist with a valid cause to which people tend to agree), or the site could also be hacked for that purpose, or a site can be "reused" which happens to be a customer website on a web server you operate. But that's quite evil … . In any case, the site should have a large existing community so that everybody can justifiably claim that they just used the host site and did not know anything about the payload data hidden in its traffic.

So to read the "secret website" you want to access, you do a daily round on this "host website", looking at new posts etc.. You will use a special browser (started from a steganographically hidden and encrypted partition on your computer) with a plugin that extracts the new steganographic payload data from this host website. So every new day of updates on the host website also contain the new day of updates for the payload website. The updates are very compact, compressed, git-style updates, probably just plain text. Also, to make connecting input to users even harder, normally every post in the payload site is anonymous (not even pseudonymous!), but users could identify themselves with transient handles for just a few posts to create necessary context in a thread.

Instead of starting the payload extraction and decryption software from a steganographically hidden area, another alternative is to get it to be part of the basic operating system installation for everyone. Which is then likewise unsuspicious because it provides an alibi.

The payload website would not be encrypted. So the surveillance body would find out about it quickly, and it would take some weeks or months to get the host website switched off or its "infection" with the payload site removed (by choosing a proper jurisdiction for the server location, and by using Tor to hide its location somewhat, it can definitely take that long). At which point the payload site would switch to a different host site. Even better, it would always use different host sites in parallel for redundancy, and switching from one to the other would not need any re-downloading of previous data. Just the new "git commits".

But maybe it is better to have the payload data encrypted – if it helps to keep the "infection" from being detected for a long time, it definitely is better. That however implies that every user has to get their own specialized payload, encrypted with a PGP public key. So the host site cannot be a broadcast type of site (like a forum), but has to provide content to every user (like a PTT voice messaging site for example, since PTT voice messages can well take steganographic payload). The payload site server would also encode slightly randomized payload for the different users, and of course not log the random elements, to prevent the connections between the public keys (on the server) and the user accounts (of the host site) to be made when the server is compromised. Which means that even then, nobody can tell which users got data with payload and which are just normal users. Only when finding the users and seizing their computers one could tell that … but no, not even then, since (1) the users usually cannot be found and (2) their private keys for decryption are steganographically hidden on their computer (see below).

Against breaking communication encryption: anonymity by free wi-fi

There is no issue with encryption being broken (or content not being encrypted at all!) if this still does not give them a hint to your real-world identity. The solution is to not give them any connection between the IP address and personal identities. How to achieve this?

  • Use a mobile device that looks for open wi-fi networks while you walk around in a big city. If it finds one, it will connect to it quickly, send its data, and disconnect again. The data is a git-style, very compact update to the shared content of the website / forum you contribute to. With this method, you can sync to that website 1-2 times a day, which should be enough for most purposes.
  • If your country does not allow anonymous Internet access at all (such as in China), send your data by encrypted e-mail to somebody abroad whom you trust and who will perform the above procedure for you. If you don't have somebody you trust, you are doomed anyway 😉

The security and safety of this procedure can be enhanced by:

  • using directional wi-fi antennae hidden below your clothing (for example in your arm – the system will guide you to point your arm in the right direction to get the best connection to a remote wifi 😉
  • more importantly, by using a new, spoofed MAC address for every connection. Which is important in case the wi-fi network logs the MAC addresses of connections
  • choosing only wi-fi networks open to the general public (in bars, airports etc.), to avoid raising suspicion of the surveillance body against individuals whose wi-fi you would else compromise
  • disguising your optical appearance against face recognition through surveillance cameras etc.
  • unsuspicious behavior, to prevent raising suspicion in surveillance videos etc.; this however is a pretty low-grade threat, as it involes a lot of manual coordination work ("targeted access operations"), which a surveillance body cannot do for its whole population
  • writing from a different device than you use for reading; you would use commands like "reply-to:post452798" for placing your content at the right spot of the website; you would never ever exchange data between the two devices (since then, also data coming from a trojan by which the surveillance body infected your reading computer, could be transferred to your writing computer and could prove that you participate in the website instead of just "unknowingly" getting its data in steganograophic form)

Deniable contributions: a botnet is controlling your device!

This is a pretty funny idea: claiming that your computer (that you use for sending) does stuff that you don't even want it to do is perfectly reasonable. So even if you are caught sending through a free wi-fi network, you still have an alibi. Because there will indeed be a virus on this device, that also has the habit of sending out e-mail spam, but it is special in that you can control it. You can also justifiably deny doing so, since all the programs and data to do so (including your website contributions before being sent) are in a TrueCrypt-style partition with a full filesystem that is steganographically embedded in your personal library of self-made photos. Because these are your own photos (and you did not publish them anywhere!), nobody can claim that you steganographically modify them since they did not see them before.

But we need some more stuff: as spambots usually do, yours will auto-generate the spam e-mails you will send out, including many spelling errors, random input for changes to embedded images etc., "to pass the spam filters". But instead, these changes also allow you to add the steganographic input, which also will look just like random changes, so just like the spambot behavior. In reality, it is encrypted with a public key of the server from the website you contribute to, and as long as that private key keeps private, your alibi is safe. This is actually P2P encryption which we allowed above to be not broken. But even if it gets broken, you're still not caught by any means since you always use the free wi-fi for Internet access 🙂

The e-mails will travel to the server hosting the secret website (or to a P2P encryption connected, befriended server), with the alibi that it is also an e-mail server. The server will however claim that these e-mails are spam, and not forward them to its users. But of course, internally evaluate them to extract the payload data. The private key for doing that, and the whole "secret website" software has to be protected in the server, of course, and has to have "deniable existence". This is possible by, again, using steganographic storage of a TrueCrypt style partition, maybe in the image data of the "host website". When the server is physically accessed, it will quickly unmount that logical partition, delete the access key from its memory, and be just another normal webserver 🙂

Simplifications and optimizations

  • It is not needed to hack or infect a host site to use it for embedding another site. Just select one that allows anonymous image or video uploads. If doing so, it should however be a site where all the steganographic content is downloaded by regular users, too, so the steganographic users have an alibi. For example, a meme collection site that allows anonymous submissions and publishes daily updates is a good choice. Or a site that hosts pirated content or porn. This is much better than "infecting" sites and running a separate server for the steganographics. Since this way, no own server and no infected site can be taken down. All own software runs on the clients (which would have a little configuration file that selects what URLs to download for steganographic content, and which for cover, and a decryption key to access the extracted steganographic information. Depening on how far this key is shared, it becomes any software between steganographic 1:1 communciation or many-to-many communication.)
  • The important point is to make steganographic communication comfortable. Not like e-mail, but like a full forum, even with special features like calendars etc.. Only then one can organize social change with it. The way NNTP (Newsnet) works is a good paradigm: a desktop client software collects message / data packages from somewhere, and provides the frontend locally.
  • For anonymous posting on public wi-fi networks, maybe one can even use little quadrocopter or blimp drones, operating at night. During the day they would hide in some place not at your home, and in passing on your way to work etc. you would transfer the next set of data to upload to them.

In your twenties, you were a visionary. You wanted to learn it all, and fix it all. All the world.

Ever realized that you cannot do everything that is meaningful in your life? When you dedicate your life to help people with HIV, you can't go find a cure for HIV. Or find the quantum gravity model. Or develop sustainable government. Or find out and teach us all about the Transcendental and God (if you find there is God). Or clean up all the landmines. Or the ocean plastic. Or invent a fair-for-all mode for economic exchange. Or this. That.

Because your lifetime is limited.

And then you realize, it would be great to at least achieve one of these. And then you focus on that one.

And then you realize, you have neither time or money for even one of these meaningful contributions (… contributions to what, actually?). Because your parents might be old, needing your help. Or you made children, just like everyone else, and now have to care for them. Or you got fired from your job, the bank took your house, and now you're living in a tent. That you found in that garbage can. It's just a tarp actually. Or you get medical conditions, so you can be happy to make it through the day.

Because your lifetime is limited.

And then you realize, your life will pass and end as meaningless as everyone else's life. And life, what is life? It then seems like a meaningless aggregates of matter to you. You, yourself, just a bunch of atoms, with your conscience an unnecessary (and unpleasant) emergence of it.

And you start to enjoy that your lifetime is limited, not your limited lifetime.

Stop that.

Now, come back to your visions.

Just change one thing: it should be no longer your vision, now it's ours. Humanity's. We are all in our twenties again.

Everyone who has given up on seeking, and expecting to see, the abolition of greed, poverty and evil, and the introduction of immortality and freedom for all, has given up living while alive. Seek, and expect, again. Because now we seek, and expect, together. You were frustrated by your powerlessness as an individual. Now marvel at what seven billion can do. And what God will do, if there is a God, and seven billion seek him.

Yes, you should expect and seek God, because there might be God after all. But do not forget all the rest of what is good. Physical immortality. Good governance structures. Unextinction of animals. Desert forests. The Theory of Everything. Space colonization. So much before us!

Now what? It's all about how we organize. If your grandma cooks a simple healthy meal for scientists working on quantum gravity, she contributes. If you read news about political quarrels, visit touristic spots from your hard-earned surplus money, engage in any avoidable consumption, you do not.

Wake up, all of us!

The pieces are coming together already. Take note, organize yourselves, contribute. Some inspirations? Here you go:

And of course: Are we alone in the universe? What does it all mean? Are we sure about this? Why? Re-asking the big questions is probably one of our biggest challenged. Us modern folks got so used to the scientific storied of Big Bang, cosmic evolution, and biologic evolution. And now, scientific evolution comes along and puts to question the very concept of space-time. And with it, the existing notion of Big Bang.

Now, what?


You have installed the ISPConfig server admi panel (in my case, version, all according to their guidelines called "The Perfect Server". In this case, I used the setup instructions for ISPConfig 3 on Debian 7.0 Wheezy with Apache2, BIND, Dovecot. Then you create a website in ISPConfig, create an FTP account for it in ISPConfig, try to log in with this account, and it does not work. The client-side FTP log would be simply:

Command:    USER c1testuser
Response:    331 User c1testuser OK. Password required
Command:    PASS ***************
Response:    530 Login authentication failed
Error:    Critical error
Error:    Could not connect to server

Concurrently, you would see something like this in /var/log/syslog:

Nov 19 16:48:53 one pure-ftpd: (?@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) [INFO] New connection from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
Nov 19 16:48:53 one pure-ftpd: (?@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) [INFO] PAM_RHOST enabled. Getting the peer address
Nov 19 16:49:00 one pure-ftpd: (?@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) [WARNING] Authentication failed for user [c1testuser]
Nov 19 16:49:00 one pure-ftpd: (?@xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) [INFO] Logout.

And something like this in /var/log/auth.log:

Nov 19 16:48:53 one pure-ftpd: pam_unix(pure-ftpd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=pure-ftpd ruser=c1testuser rhost=


This problem can have several reasons, so you should try the following alternatives. I have roughly ordered them into a logical order of things to check, starting from frequent causes.

  1. Did you include the ISPConfig username prefix? In ISPConfig, when you create a FTP user, SSH user etc., the panel will prepend this username with a prefix that you can configure in "System -> Interface -> Main Config -> Sites". If the prefix uses "c[CLIENTID]" in that form, it might be "c1" for example. So when setting up your FTP client, do not just use the username you entered, but put that prefix before. Just as you see the username listed in "Sites -> FTP Accounts" in column "username".
  2. You do not have to include the domain name into the user name. At some webhosters, the actual username would be something like "user1@example.com". This is not required for ISPConfig FTP logins [source], and probably would not work either.
  3. Check that the job queue is empty. In ISPConfig, your tasks (like creating an FTP user) get processed deferredly by a cron job that runs every minute. But if it fails, the job queue can get stuck. Check in ISPConfig in "Monitor -> System State -> Show Jobqueue" to make sure it's empty, or if not, fix this as shown here.
  4. If you have "Replication failed" errors in the job queue, sync ISPConfig versions across servers. This is only relevant if you use ISPConfig for multiple combined servers. See the instructions.
  5. Make sure you can at least connect with system users via FTP. All users that you create in ISPConfig via "Sites -> Web Access -> FTP Accounts" are virtual users, which are mapped to system users when logging in via FTP. The mapping is defined in the "Options" tab, " field when creating a FTP account in ISPConfig, and managed in MySQL database dbispconfig, table ftp_user. The system users to which they are mapped (like web1, web2 etc.) cannot be used for FTP logins either as they have no passwords defined (see /etc/shadow: ! in the second field means "no password authentication"). However, when you create SSH users in ISPConfig, this results in system users with passwords. So try to log in with an existing SSH user, and do not forget the prefix added by ISPConfig to your chosen username. (Just check "Sites -> Shell-User" to see the proper user names.) If this works, only virtual users' authentication is broken, else something more profound could be wrong (Firewall config, fail2ban config etc.). Note that in a working setup, you should be able to login with both system and virtual users into FTP (I tested it). I was able to successfully log in using these settings (in FileZilla):
    • host: server's IPv4 address; also works with the domain name of any website hosted on this server
    • port: empty (means the default value 21 is used)
    • protocol: FTP
    • encryption: Use Plain FTP
    • logon type: Normal
    • user: the username incl. the prefix added by ISPConfig
    • password: the password
    • all other fields: left at their defaults
  6. Check if pure-ftpd-mysql's queries arrive at the database with the virtual users. You can do so by enabling MySQL query logging:
    1. In /etc/mysql/my.cnf, enable or insert the following lines:
      general_log_file        = /var/log/mysql/mysql.log
      general_log             = 1
    2. Restart the MySQL server: service mysql restart
    3. Try another failing FTP login, then look at /var/log/mysql/mysql.log to see what queries arrived at MySQL. Simply search for ftp_user, as all configured queries in /etc/pure-ftpd/db/mysql.conf include that table name. In my case, no queries arrived here at all. This can mean that you have the wrong variant of pureftp installed, see the next step.
    4. Do not forget to disable query logging again (and MySQL again) after you fixed this issue, as it's a performance killer.
  7. Make sure you have pure-ftpd-mysql installed. Execute apt-get install pure-ftpd-mysql and see if it wants to install the package; if yes, that's the issue here. Let it install the package, and afterwards your FTP logins with virtual users should work now. Because only the pure-ftpd-mysql variant includes MySQL based authentication. Note that /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd-mysql exists and that /etc/init.d/pure-ftpd-mysql restart resp. service pure-ftpd-mysql restart can be executed without an error message even before the pure-ftpd-mysql package is installed. These commands simply will not output anything instead of the server startup command, and that's the only symptom that something is wrong here.

I still have no idea how I missed to install pure-ftpd-mysql. I simply followed the "The Perfect Server" ISPConfig installation instructions and in my variant, on page 4, the correct package gets installed (where they run apt-get install pure-ftpd-common pure-ftpd-mysql quota quotatool).


This happened right after the installation of ownCloud 5.0.13, when trying to log in for the first time. This failed, and the login page was simply served again (without any error message or explanation). The URL of that login page was then something like http://example.com/index.php?redirect_url=%2Findex.php%2Fapps%2Ffiles.

During installation, I also had to create an xcache admin user and password to solve the "xcache.admin.user and/or xcache.admin.pass settings is not configured" issue (for a description and instructions to solve it, see this tutorial).

However, this issue only happened when accessing the ownCloud installation from the same URL that was used for creating the admin user in the first place during installation. When using an alternative URL, like an IP based on available on most servers as http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/owncloud/, login worked flawlessly (also reported here).


You have to disable xcache authentication again, and instruct your browser to forget the HTTP Basic authentication details that else get sent with every HTTP request header to the site's URL and trigger this issue again. Step by step:

  1. Go to the place in your php.ini or server admin panel where you configured the xcache authentication. It would look similar to this:

    xcache.admin.user = "admin"
    xcache.admin.pass = "798967d2527320febcf"

  2. Either add the line "xcache.admin.enable_auth = Off" or delete this whole section.
  3. Reconfigure or restart your web server (if not done by your server admin panel automatically). Depending on how your PHP gets served, it is usually one of these, on Debian and Ubuntu Linux at least:
    service apache2 reload;
    service php-fpm reload;
  4. Delete your HTTPBasic authentication details from your browser.
    • In Firefox, this is done by going to "Edit -> Preferences -> Clear your recent history -> Active Logins".
    • In Chrome, it can be done as shown here.
  5. You can confirm with a phpinfo() script, called from the ownCloud domain that would not work for login, that the HTTPBasic login details are no longer sent in HTTP headers for requests to this domain. Look for variable _SERVER[“HTTP_AUTHORIZATION”], the value should now be no value.


  • The issue of the ownCloud login loop (with or without an actual redirect loop error message) is quite common and probably has multiple causes. If the above instructions did not help you, try some more solutions.
  • Maybe it is possible to use "xcache.admin.enable_auth = Off" during the initial ownCloud setup already, avoiding this whole maize. I did not try.
  • The issue seems to be ownCloud issue 4556, as esp. confirmed by this comment, showing the same solution.
  • Disabling HTTPBasic authentication for xcache is not a security issue because these login details are normally meant only for the xcache admin interface. So simply install this admin interface on a different virtual host, and enable HTTPBasic authentication over there.
  • This issue was not due to entering invalid login details for the ownCloud user; since when doing so deliberately, an error message would appear asking if one forgot the password.
  • The fact that the IP-based URL worked had nothing to do with webserver setup to handle the name-based URL [as assumed here]. Instead, it simply leads to using a different web server configuration, where xcache authentication had never been enabled. This happens for example in web server setups where you modify php.ini settings with snippets added per domain.

Edit the website record in ISPConfig 3, there go to the options tab and in line "PHP open_basedir" set the value "none".

Save, wait a minute for the job to disappear from ISPConfig's job queue (Monitor -> Show Jobqueue) and confirm that your change made it into the configuration with a command like cat /etc/php5/fpm/pool.d/web3.conf (using your website ID of course). Or even better, look into phpinfo() output from your website.

There are two main reasons for this: the next job causing an error, or a stale lock.

How to fix a job queue stuck with a job that causes an error

  1. Check for errors. Go to "Monitor -> Show System Log" and check if there is a message of loglevel "Error". If yes, proceed below; if no, it is more likely that you have the stale lock file issue – see next section.
  2. Fix the error. Fix the cause for the error and then click "Remove" in the ISPConfig system log view. This will cause ISPConfig to reprocess the stuck job when its cron job runs the next time (which is every minute in a default setup).
  3. If needed, use Debug log level. If it is not clear what causes the error, enable the Debug log level (in System -> Server Config -> Server -> Loglevel), wait a minute and revisit "Monitor -> Show System Log". Since ISPConfig continuously tries to process the failing job again, now you should at least see more detailed error messages.
  4. If needed, use direct cron output. If it is still not clear what causes the error, you can look at the direct output of the cron job by executing /usr/local/ispconfig/server/server.sh in a console. If you see "There is already an instance of server.php running.", wait a few seconds and try again – your execution accidentally overlapped with the regular ISPConfig cron job. If you keep getting this however, it is more probable that you have the "stale lock file" issue, see below.
  5. Or let ISPConfig ignore the failing job. If you don't know how to fix the error, you can let ISPConfig jump over this job and proceed with the next one. For that, increment database column server.updated by one in the ISPConfig database (usually dbispconfig), in the row that belongs to the affected server. If you want to jump over several jobs: make this number correspond to the ID of the last job record which ISPConfig should consider "done". Job records are stored in table sys_datalog, and their IDs in column sys_datalog.datalog_id.


  1. "Delete ISPconfig job queue" thread
  2. ISPConfig 3 Manual 1.4, chapter 7.1 "How Do I Find Out What Is Wrong If ISPConfig Does Not Work?"

How to fix when a database creation job causes an error

This is one of the cases from the scenario above, where a job in the job queue causes an error. However, this error is particularly nasty, since it will not show up as an error in the ISPConfig job queue, and can cause teh cron job to occupy all the system's memory, so that even the web server can crash (or fail to restart) in response.


  • The ISPConfig job queue is no longer processed, and the next job to process (so, the one it got stuck with) is probably a database creation or deletion job.
  • You have the smpyoms of the "stale lock file" issue below, because the ISPConfig cron job does not return, and if it finally crashes, it leaves the stale lock file.
  • When deleting the stale lockfile, enabling the debug log level and then starting the cron job from the command line, one gets an infinite loop of error messages like these:
    23.02.2014-15:25 - WARNING - DB::query(SELECT count(syslog_id) as number FROM sys_log WHERE datalog_id = 910 AND loglevel = 2) -> mysqli_query Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: YES)

How to fix this:

The cause of this was that the MySQL root user password was changed after installing ISPConfig, and without adding this to the ISPConfig configuration. It is needed there for ISPConfig to be able to create and delete MySQL databases. So, edit /usr/local/ispconfig/server/lib/mysql_clientdb.conf and update the MySQL root password there (entering it in plain text). [source]

How to fix a stale lock file

This reason is the most likely cause in cases where you see the following message permanently when enabling the debug log level in System -> Server Config -> Server -> Loglevel and then (repeatedly) trying to start the cron job manually on the console:

user@host:~ $ /usr/local/ispconfig/server/server.sh
user@host:~ $ 15.11.2013-19:56 – DEBUG – There is already an instance of server.php running. Exiting.

It means that the  ISPConfig cron job crashed (or you killed it) when it was running the last time, leaving a stale lock file behind.

Fix this by executing:

rm -f /usr/local/ispconfig/server/temp/.ispconfig_lock