×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you a
Computer / IT professional?
Join Tek-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Tek-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Adding Usupported HTTP Request Methods for SVN

Adding Usupported HTTP Request Methods for SVN

Adding Usupported HTTP Request Methods for SVN

(OP)
I must admit that this is our first Firebox, so I am a newbie. We have a Firebox 750e running Fireware v8.3. WebBlocker and IPS are disabled.

Our Web applications department uses SVN on a Linux Server for for version control. The Developers use TortoiseSVN on their local machines to manage  commits, updates, merges, etc...

I created rules for allowing HTTP request methods that SVN requires thinking that I could add "supported methods" to the HTTP-Proxy later (much like SQUID).

I cannot see that there is a way to add to the list of supported methods. The Firebox docs simply state that creating rules allowing unsupported methods will result in "method unsupported" error messages. Does anyone know if there is any way to add them? Do I have to go around the Firebox to use SVN?

Thanks in advance.

RE: Adding Usupported HTTP Request Methods for SVN

(OP)
Never mind... I finally found an answer. It's disappointing. Apparently, there is no support for request methods above and beyond the standard 8.

Thus, SVN (and remote Outlook sync, for that matter), cannot be done through the HTTP-Proxy.

The proxy must be worked around with HTTP Packet filtering (to the destination host of the desired request methods - whatever happened the DMZ?).

Between this difficulty and the lack of a web-based management utility (there is only, to my knowledge, a windows client), I am extremely disappointed in Watchguard.

The Firebox was not my choice, and it would not have been. If you are thinking of going with Watchguard, I would encourage you to look elsewhere to avoid momentous frustration.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Tek-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Tek-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Tek-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Tek-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login

Close Box

Join Tek-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical computer professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Tek-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close