htaccess question

[darnit]

Hi,

This is probably a pretty stupid question for those technically minded. But here it goes.

I have a folder of thumbs that I dont want to be available unless opened within an HTML page. Is there a way to modify my htaccess file so the thumbs can not be seen unless loaded within an .html file or opened directy by going to the .jpg directly?

Thanks in advance.

[aico]

just put a blank file in there and name it index.html

[darnit]

Originally Posted by aico

just put a blank file in there and name it index.html

Yes but that still wont stop those who access the .jpg file directly. Basically I dont want the file to load unless from a page. However I do have other graphics that need to load on the domain so im seeking a solution for a specific directory behavior regarding images.

[aico]

Originally Posted by darnit

... so the thumbs can not be seen unless loaded within an .html file or opened directy by going to the .jpg directly?

Sorry, I gave you the solution for what you asked...

[broke]

RewriteRule .*\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|bmp)$ site.info.here [R,NC]

[kernelpanic]

Are you looking to stop hotlinking, or type-ins of the jpeg? If your goal is to stop the latter, I urge you to reconsider. When someone "accesses it directly", no referer headers are sent to the server with the HTTP request.

Why would this be problematic? Many surfers use privacy products, at browser, system, or firewall level that block the sending of HTTP referer headers. Thus, direct access would be indistinguishable from one of those "enhanced privacy" pieces of software.

Why is direct access such a problem? If they can't browse the directory, and don't know image names, then how is it a problem?

[darnit]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

Are you looking to stop hotlinking, or type-ins of the jpeg? If your goal is to stop the latter, I urge you to reconsider. When someone "accesses it directly", no referer headers are sent to the server with the HTTP request.

Why would this be problematic? Many surfers use privacy products, at browser, system, or firewall level that block the sending of HTTP referer headers. Thus, direct access would be indistinguishable from one of those "enhanced privacy" pieces of software.

Why is direct access such a problem? If they can't browse the directory, and don't know image names, then how is it a problem?

Actually its because of 2257. I have ton of fake tgps that use remote thumbs. They have all been coverted to text links. I want to continue to use their listings however the program errors out if it cant upload thumbs to my server. So by disabling thumbs from being "available" to the web unless loaded in a page there is a reduced risk. Paranoid = yes.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by darnit

Actually its because of 2257. I have ton of fake tgps that use remote thumbs. They have all been coverted to text links. I want to continue to use their listings however the program errors out if it cant upload thumbs to my server. So by disabling thumbs from being "available" to the web unless loaded in a page there is a reduced risk. Paranoid = yes.

Ohh, so it is about remote linking then.


You'll want to use mod_rewrite
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/mod_rewrite.html



it will look something like this:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://www.pornosite.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://pornosite.com [NC]
RewriteRule [^/]+.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png)$ - [NC,F,L]

[darnit]

Just what i needed...

Thanks broke and kernel.... everyone please click on their sigs