Alaska Software Inc. - Help needed Apache error.log
Username: Password:
AuthorTopic: Help needed Apache error.log
Ben KonemannHelp needed Apache error.log
on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:14:16 +0100
Very often we have the following error meaages in the Apache error.log:

[Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer:
http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/
or
[Mon Nov 22 07:26:58 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer:
http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/cgi-bin/waa1gate.exe

In most cases, with this kind of error, a error message appears after the
xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] and before , referer: info.,
like this:
[Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] <ERRORMESSAGE> ,
referer: http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/

In the Waa1 log notting special.
No complaints from the customers/users!!

Any hints????

Environment:

Windows XP sp 3
APACHE 2.0.59
WAA 1.90.331
Thomas Braun
Re: Help needed Apache error.log
on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:03:31 +0100
Ben Konemann wrote:

> Very often we have the following error meaages in the Apache error.log:
> 
> [Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer:
> http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/
> or
> [Mon Nov 22 07:26:58 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer:
> http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/cgi-bin/waa1gate.exe

Normally, between the Client IP and the "referer" part, there should be the
actual error message... at least this is the case in my apache error log.

You should also be able to correlate this to the actual requests in the
server access.log file.

I would say that there is either some kind of configuration problem or
illegal requests from the outside.

But without seeing the actual log files and all of the configuration files
this is only a wild guess.

Thomas
Ben KonemannRe: Help needed Apache error.log
on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:04:10 +0100
Thomas,

Thanks for your reaction.

I tried to figure out the correlation between access.log and error.log.

The cannot find anything wrong about the opposite request.

I have attached a text file with part of the access.log, error.log and
WAA11011.log

All seems ok.

What to do next??

Ben

"Thomas Braun" <spam@software-braun.de> schreef in bericht
news:1q8k4ysviyrj.2v5eqs70gyhz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Ben Konemann wrote:
>
> > Very often we have the following error meaages in the Apache error.log:
> >
> > [Mon Nov 22 07:25:36 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer:
> > http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/
> > or
> > [Mon Nov 22 07:26:58 2010] [error] [client xx.xxx.xxx.xxx] , referer:
> > http://yyy.yy.yy.yyy/cgi-bin/waa1gate.exe
>
> Normally, between the Client IP and the "referer" part, there should be
the
> actual error message... at least this is the case in my apache error log.
>
> You should also be able to correlate this to the actual requests in the
> server access.log file.
>
> I would say that there is either some kind of configuration problem or
> illegal requests from the outside.
>
> But without seeing the actual log files and all of the configuration files
> this is only a wild guess.
>
> Thomas




info.txt
Thomas Braun
Re: Help needed Apache error.log
on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:43:11 +0100
Ben Konemann wrote:

> I have attached a text file with part of the access.log, error.log and
> WAA11011.log
> 
> All seems ok.

I would say that too - everything just seems to ok.

Only the error message looks weird because there is not error
description... one thing to try could be to use Apache 2.2 instead of
2.0.59 or ask in some Apache related newsgroup / discussion forum...

But basically I would say that if everything works as expected from the
customer/client side of view then just ignore it 

regard
Thomas
Ben KonemannRe: Help needed Apache error.log
on Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:29:47 +0100
Thomas,

Thanks.
I will ignore the error messages and try to get more information via Apache
related newsgroups.

Ben

"Thomas Braun" <spam@software-braun.de> schreef in bericht
news:zm7j5dil137$.1rkv02i3h7bwi.dlg@40tude.net...
> Ben Konemann wrote:
>
> > I have attached a text file with part of the access.log, error.log and
> > WAA11011.log
> >
> > All seems ok.
>
> I would say that too - everything just seems to ok.
>
> Only the error message looks weird because there is not error
> description... one thing to try could be to use Apache 2.2 instead of
> 2.0.59 or ask in some Apache related newsgroup / discussion forum...
>
> But basically I would say that if everything works as expected from the
> customer/client side of view then just ignore it 
>
> regard
> Thomas