Host for .gov Domain

[A.Member]

For those that have .gov domain for the website, who do you use for hosting?

Finding it a challenge for most hosts to agree to the following requirement (without undue added expense):

that the person or entity whose server you propose to use through the IP address in this application has agreed that the server hosting said IP address will be deemed part of the CAP.GOV or CAP.US system or network and that CAP will, from time to time, remotely scan the server at said IP address for security vulnerabilities so as to protect the integrity of the CAP.GOV or CAP.US network

from http://ns1.cap.gov/capgovform.html

[Майор Хаткевич]

You'd think they wouldn't mind...don't you have to give NHQ "keys" anyway in that case?

[a2capt]

.. it's why you see nothing but static HTML pages on anyone still using the .gov TLD.

Pretty much everyone has bailed, that wanted to do something more, with the exception being NER and NJWG, IIRC, which appear to be self hosted.

Between this and the latest proposal from this same directorate on requiring everyone to use the .gov hierarchy, but at the same time demanding that the provider take down the firewall to allow the box to be scanned.. kinda defeats the purpose. So, yup. IT directors have said screw it.


DreamHost will host a .gov domain, they have to add it manually to the account, and they will provide free hosting to Non-Profits .. use the IRS Determination Letter from NHQ.  I stopped short of requesting a change from the CAP DNS administrator after talking with another Wing IT person on the hassle they went through, and switched to a .org TLD.

[A.Member]

You'd think they wouldn't mind...don't you have to give NHQ "keys" anyway in that case?

Ah, yeah...they mind. 

A host isn't giving you a dedicated server (unless you're paying for something well beyond your needs or your have some sweetheart deal).   They are running a virtual server.  They aren't going to be particularly open to the idea of some yahoos coming in and running scans that potentially impact their performance.   They'd need to have some pretty clear guardrails on what those scans entail.   

[a2capt]

..and I'm not even convinced that whole business is within the scope of requirements. I think it's more related to someone making a position for themselves.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What do we have worth stealing anyway?

[dwb]

The national CAP web site has been hacked a couple of times. I have screenshots of it from years ago kicking around on my computer somewhere. Some Wing web sites have also been defaced, as recently as this past year.

I suspect the .gov security scanning requirement might actually come from the federal government. Even if it doesn't, it's a good idea. It's embarrassing to CAP to have web sites hacked, and foreign hacker groups in particular relish in hacking anything that ends in .gov, not understanding (or not caring) that it's not actually the fedgov they're hacking.

Personally, I think every member should have a CAP-issued and managed E-mail address for CAP business, complete with templated web hosting for all units. Won't happen any time soon, but a guy can dream.

[A.Member]

What do we have worth stealing anyway?

Names, addresses, etc. (ie. identities) for anywhere between 30 and 60,000 members depending on how foolish you are the size/scope of your unit...

[Panache]

The national CAP web site has been hacked a couple of times. I have screenshots of it from years ago kicking around on my computer somewhere. Some Wing web sites have also been defaced, as recently as this past year.

Heck, back in February I helped UH60guy track down some malicious javascript code in the VAWG website...

[Майор Хаткевич]

What do we have worth stealing anyway?

Names, addresses, etc. (ie. identities) for anywhere between 30 and 60,000 members depending on how foolish you are the size/scope of your unit...

Why would that be on the unit website?

[A.Member]

What do we have worth stealing anyway?

Names, addresses, etc. (ie. identities) for anywhere between 30 and 60,000 members depending on how foolish you are the size/scope of your unit...

Why would that be on the unit website?

Did you notice the strikethrough?  You might be surprised at the information I've seen and continue to find on various unit sites; some of the larger offenders are up the food chain. 

The question was what do we have worth stealing?  Just look at the amount of information that we gather on our members; way, way too much...and most of it is not needed and some of it is quite sensitive.  I'd argue there is no legitimate need to collect most of it - but that's getting a bit off topic.

[Tim Day]

I'm in the process of working with the cap.gov domain adminstrator to authorize a new web host for the vawg.cap.gov domain. The service will provide a virtual private server with 2 dedicated IP addresses.

We are coordinating with the technicians at the hosting service and working through a series of NESSUS (security) scans, improving a little with each one. This can be tricky because of the way the report describes the vulnerabilities.

Once we're authorized, we should be able to provide hosting to units within the wing. Cost is reasonable (< $500 per year) for a Wing, especially if we can alleviate some cost for subordinate units.

If we're able to pass the scans eventually, I'll be happy to pass the name of the host service via PM.

[dwb]

The national CAP web site has been hacked a couple of times. I have screenshots of it from years ago kicking around on my computer somewhere. Some Wing web sites have also been defaced, as recently as this past year.

Heck, back in February I helped UH60guy track down some malicious javascript code in the VAWG website...

I was being polite and not naming names... 

[A.Member]

I'm in the process of working with the cap.gov domain adminstrator to authorize a new web host for the vawg.cap.gov domain. The service will provide a virtual private server with 2 dedicated IP addresses.

We are coordinating with the technicians at the hosting service and working through a series of NESSUS (security) scans, improving a little with each one. This can be tricky because of the way the report describes the vulnerabilities.

Once we're authorized, we should be able to provide hosting to units within the wing. Cost is reasonable (< $500 per year) for a Wing, especially if we can alleviate some cost for subordinate units.

If we're able to pass the scans eventually, I'll be happy to pass the name of the host service via PM.

Send it, please.  I'm glad you were able to actually get in touch with National.  I've left 3 messages...all unreturned.

[Tim Day]

I'm in the process of working with the cap.gov domain adminstrator to authorize a new web host for the vawg.cap.gov domain. The service will provide a virtual private server with 2 dedicated IP addresses.

We are coordinating with the technicians at the hosting service and working through a series of NESSUS (security) scans, improving a little with each one. This can be tricky because of the way the report describes the vulnerabilities.

Once we're authorized, we should be able to provide hosting to units within the wing. Cost is reasonable (< $500 per year) for a Wing, especially if we can alleviate some cost for subordinate units.

If we're able to pass the scans eventually, I'll be happy to pass the name of the host service via PM.

We've been approved. Here's the service I used: http://www.arvixe.com/vps_virtual_private_servers_hosting. CAP.gov domain administrator coordinated with me and the techs there by email over a span of days as we addressed each identified vulnerability.

[A.Member]

Between this and the latest proposal from this same directorate on requiring everyone to use the .gov hierarchy...

I've heard of no such "directorate".  Source?

[a2capt]

It's mentioned in the agenda, here:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18825.0

[A.Member]

It's mentioned in the agenda, here:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18825.0

Thanks.  I'm guessing nothing came of it...it was just a CSAG agenda item and didn't seem to have a ton of support at that.

Also, just curious, for those that know Col Webb, what is his background/qualifications for being the cap.gov domain administrator?  Does he have a professional IT background? (that's not necessarily a callout, just curious - as stated)

[dwb]

His initials are WWW and his last name is Webb. Is there anyone more qualified?

(I don't actually have an answer, sorry)

[Mustang]

Webb is an attorney, not an IT professional.

[a2capt]

Yup, which is what makes dealing with .. "frustrating".

[Al Sayre]

Never met the guy, but it always makes me wonder if somebody read Catch 22 too many times (think Major Major Major).

[JeffDG]

Yup, which is what makes dealing with .. "frustrating".

I like the concept of making dealing with the CAP.GOV domain a PITA, then when people flee to .ORG or .US and such, turning around and asking the CSAG to make CAP.GOV mandatory.

[a2capt]

Especially given the irony that even NHQ chose to flee..

[JeffDG]

Anybody hear what happened at the CSAG meeting last month when that was discussed?

[Tim Day]

The .gov isn't that much of a PITA. The requirements do drive more expensive hosting (for example, we had to go to a virtual private server) because of changes that need to be made which would impact other users of shared hosting. However - $40 / month is well within a Wing's budget. The hosting company tech support and cap.gov domain admin participated in some back-and-forth over a few days until everything passed.

We're able to run WordPress and MYSQL, though security measures have to be taken. We've chosen to use WordPress multi-site, and the cap.gov Domain Admin provided the wildcard subdomain (pointed to our dedicated IP) so that we can run the subdomain version of wPMU, meaning we'll be able to host sites for our units like mysquadron.mywing.cap.gov.

This is somewhat experimental, so a couple of months from now it could all collapse. But so far so good.

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, but that's $480 more then any wing should be spending on Web services.

[Spaceman3750]

I'm sorry, but that's $480 more then any wing should be spending on Web services.

I have yet to see a Google site that I actually like, especially since they plaster their stuff at the bottom of your page.

That said, it is easy and doesn't require an IT person to run, which is both good and bad.

[JeffDG]

I'm sorry, but that's $480 more then any wing should be spending on Web services.

I have yet to see a Google site that I actually like, especially since they plaster their stuff at the bottom of your page.

That said, it is easy and doesn't require an IT person to run, which is both good and bad.

You can turn off their stuff in the footer.

[Eclipse]

I think there's actually a couple things you can't, but regardless.

Get the organization, nationally, to bare minimum (i.e. every unit has a contact page and a general, current news feed)
and then talk about "fancy" or "Like" - there's thousands of businesses that use nothing but Sites
to run their whole web presence, including ecommerce back ends.

The key is the content, not the format - look at the abomination that is Drudge Report, and Reddit is essentially
just a forum engine, yet these are some of the most heavily traffic sites on the web.

[Tim Day]

I'm sorry, but that's $480 more then any wing should be spending on Web services.

Really? To provide hosting for subdomains for every squadron and group in the wing plus special sites on demand for for encampments, etc?

[JeffDG]

I'm sorry, but that's $480 more then any wing should be spending on Web services.

Really? To provide hosting for subdomains for every squadron and group in the wing plus special sites on demand for for encampments, etc?

Costs me $0 from Google.  Plus I get 30GB of storage (per member), e-mail, shared calendars, mailing lists, instant messaging, video conferencing, plus more stuff I haven't tapped yet.

[Eclipse]

^ Yep.

Unlimited users, practically unlimited space, no ads.

Turn.

Key.

[a2capt]

Click.

Done.

[Tim Day]

I'm familiar with Google Apps as I'm on my 5th instance of GApps for NP I've set up. When it comes to website content management, sites isn't really easier than wordpress and as discussed it's more limited. Google excels when it comes to email, file storage/sharing, groups, basic videoteleconferencing, and a bunch of other apps. Sites is their weak point.

That said, I've used and recommended sites to others.  It's not bad. It's just not that good. It's easy to set up sites for your squadron like mywing.cap.gov/mysquadron but a little harder to do mysquadron.mywing.cap.gov. For many organizations, the benefits you get from using wordpress aren't worth it. However, not everyone's situation is alike.

[JeffDG]

It's easy to set up sites for your squadron like mywing.cap.gov/mysquadron but a little harder to do mysquadron.mywing.cap.gov.

With a wildcard CNAME, setting up mysquadron.mywing.cap.gov is approximately 3 clicks in Sites.

Honesly, once we apply the base template for a unit, as an IT guy, I really have almost zero to do with the websites.  That's a PA function, and I provide them with the baseline, they are wholly responsible for the content.

[Tim Day]

It's easy to set up sites for your squadron like mywing.cap.gov/mysquadron but a little harder to do mysquadron.mywing.cap.gov.

With a wildcard CNAME, setting up mysquadron.mywing.cap.gov is approximately 3 clicks in Sites.

Honesly, once we apply the base template for a unit, as an IT guy, I really have almost zero to do with the websites.  That's a PA function, and I provide them with the baseline, they are wholly responsible for the content.

Same number of clicks / continuing involvement with WordPress multi-sites (though sadly we do not have a Wing PAO at this point).

[A.Member]

Google excels when it comes to email, file storage/sharing, groups, basic videoteleconferencing, and a bunch of other apps. Sites is their weak point...

...It's not bad. It's just not that good.

Strong concur.   

Google Sites (and GA as a whole) is a great choice for an intranet site.  It's not the best choice for a public facing/external site with the purpose of recruiting/increasing awareness.  It's simply not as robust and flexible with design as other solutions.   

If <$500 annually breaks a Wing level budget, then you've got bigger issues than a website.  Paying for a good host to get the right site can be money well spent in this scenario. 

[Eclipse]

When it comes to website content management, sites isn't really easier than wordpress and as discussed it's more limited.

Content management is rarely the issue - once the site is setup, people can post via login, email, or whatever has been
enabled.  It's the initial site creation, and ongoing site maintenance which is generally the problem.   Or it breaks and "Jim quit".

Sites is their weak point.

It's not bad. It's just not that good.

However it is free, which in a CAP context wins the "better" argument.

That $480 could send 2-3+ cadets to an encampment, or an NSCA scholarship, or heck a big pizza party,
vs. being flushed for no reason.

[Eclipse]

If <$500 annually breaks a Wing level budget, then you've got bigger issues than a website.  Paying for a good host to get the right site can be money well spent in this scenario.

Waste is waste.  National already has a very fancy recruiting site.  Hyperlinks to it are free.

Anyone so inclined can over-complicate Google Sites to the same level you can over-complicate any other CMS.

$500 is more then the annual budgets of a lot of squadrons.

[A.Member]

That $480 could send 2-3+ cadets to an encampment, or an NSCA scholarship, or heck a big pizza party,
vs. being flushed for no reason.

The flip side is that it could also be used to host a quality, professional, updated site that serves as an effective sales brochure for potential partner agencies as well as a recruiting tool that brings in the quality members we're after.

[A.Member]

If <$500 annually breaks a Wing level budget, then you've got bigger issues than a website.  Paying for a good host to get the right site can be money well spent in this scenario.

Waste is waste.  National already has a very fancy recruiting site.  Hyperlinks to it are free.

No.  National has a hodge podge of stuff thrown together on a webpage...it's a mess.  And adding hyperlinks to a page is not recruiting.

Anyone so inclined can over-complicate Google Sites to the same level you can over-complicate any other CMS.

An external site should not be over complicated...that's the point.  It should be elegant and get the message across clearly and succinctly.  It's more about the visual design; it's marketing.

$500 is more then the annual budgets of a lot of squadrons.

Again, at a Wing level, if $500 for a website is causing you issues, you have larger issues to be concerned with.

[Eclipse]

No.  National has a hodge podge of stuff thrown together on a webpage...it's a mess.  And adding hyperlinks to a page is not recruiting.

Actually, if you are depending on your web page for anything but contact information, and unit news, you're cooked.

Websites are not recruiting, and if you're creating "elegant content" that exceeds what NHQ is doing, you are wasting your and CAP's time.

NHQ may not have a coherent internet strategy end-to-end, but there's nothing wrong with the main site from an external perspective.

Again, at a Wing level, if $500 for a website is causing you issues, you have larger issues to be concerned with.

Done a wing budget lately? 

$500 is decidely an issue in many wings these days.  The fact that anyone would think spending $500 of
corporate money when they don't have to is textbook FWA.

[A.Member]

No.  National has a hodge podge of stuff thrown together on a webpage...it's a mess.  And adding hyperlinks to a page is not recruiting.

Actually, if you are depending on your web page for anything but contact information, and unit news, you're cooked.

Websites are not recruiting, and if you're creating "elegant content" that exceeds what NHQ is doing, you are wasting your and CAP's time.

NHQ may not have a coherent internet strategy end-to-end, but there's nothing wrong with the main site from an external perspective.

Says you.  Opinions differ...over 80% of our new members find CAP through the web.  But I guess that's not recruiting. 

Again, at a Wing level, if $500 for a website is causing you issues, you have larger issues to be concerned with.

Done a wing budget lately?

All the time.

$500 is decidely an issue in many wings these days.  The fact that anyone would think spending $500 of
corporate money when they don't have to is textbook FWA.

See my previous comment on the matter.  It stands.

[Eclipse]

...over 80% of our new members find CAP through the web.

Cite please.

Your unit?  Maybe.  Hard to prove.

Nationally?  No way.

[JeffDG]

I don't understand spending $500 and then saying "Well, it's just as good as..." when the "Good as" is free.

For $0, I get a decent website, with a PAO-proof WYSIWYG editor.  I get unit announcements.  I get unit shared calendars, including units being able to pull Group or Wing level events and display them on their unit sites.  I get 30 GB per member of storage and e-mail.  I get video conferencing and live-streaming events.  I get e-mail lists of members, broken down 10 ways from Sunday (Wanna send an e-mail to all Incident Commanders in West Tennessee?  I've got a list for that)

Did I mention I get all of this for $0?

http://tn128.tncap.us

[A.Member]

...over 80% of our new members find CAP through the web.

Cite please.

Your unit?  Maybe.  Hard to prove.

Nationally?  No way.

Our units (not National) per new member survey.  We can draw correlations via our web traffic stats as well.   That anecdotal evidence suggests successful squadrons have an "above average" web presence.   Struggling squadrons have a web presence that mirrors their performance.

I can't speak to what National does.

[A.Member]

I don't understand spending $500 and then saying "Well, it's just as good as..." when the "Good as" is free.

For $0, I get a decent website, with a PAO-proof WYSIWYG editor.  I get unit announcements.  I get unit shared calendars, including units being able to pull Group or Wing level events and display them on their unit sites.  I get 30 GB per member of storage and e-mail.  I get video conferencing and live-streaming events.  I get e-mail lists of members, broken down 10 ways from Sunday (Wanna send an e-mail to all Incident Commanders in West Tennessee?  I've got a list for that)

Did I mention I get all of this for $0?

http://tn128.tncap.us

Yes, agreed....it's an excellent intranet site.  Different audience, different purpose.

[Eclipse]

Yes, agreed....it's an excellent intranet site.  Different audience, different purpose.

And zero need at the unit level to build two separate entities in the way you are using the terminology.

I'm sure we would all be excited to see a unit web site which is not an "intranet" that you would hold up as an example of "do".

[Tim Day]

$500 is decidely an issue in many wings these days.  The fact that anyone would think spending $500 of
corporate money when they don't have to is textbook FWA.

Really, that meets the textbook definition of FWA? Cite Please.

Anyway, for those who are looking into the span of available solutions, be aware that there are several alternatives as well as cost/benefits to be considered. If your Wing budget for web ops is 0$, then sites is the way to go. For something a little nicer / more professional looking, WordPress will cost you a bit more (and it's just as PAO proof - plus your web team will be gaining a marketable skill / experience).

In fact, WordPress is the solution GSA is choosing as a CMS platform for government websites (though their service will start at $5k per month when they start charging). See http://sites.usa.gov/

[Eclipse]

$500 is decidely an issue in many wings these days.  The fact that anyone would think spending $500 of
corporate money when they don't have to is textbook FWA.

Really, that meets the textbook definition of FWA? Cite Please.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/waste
waste  [weyst] 
verb (used with object), wast·ed, wast·ing.
1. to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

[Tim Day]

$500 is decidely an issue in many wings these days.  The fact that anyone would think spending $500 of
corporate money when they don't have to is textbook FWA.

Really, that meets the textbook definition of FWA? Cite Please.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/waste
waste  [weyst] 
verb (used with object), wast·ed, wast·ing.
1. to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

Thank you. Since we get an adequate return for our $40 per month, the expenditure does not consitute FWA.