You are here: Home » Topic » A different port option for the admin sites

A different port option for the admin sites

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  rpedde 9 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2177

    siege_king
    Participant

    Hi everyone,
    it would be nice to have an option to set the port of the admin sites. So that I could only open a port for sharing music over the internet and not my admin site.

    Greetings

    #16094

    fizze
    Participant

    You don’t have to do that. 🙄
    The admin site port is an option in firefly’s config file.

    If you are talking about using FirePlay to “share” the music then you simply need your own webserver on any other port, and not using firefly’s embedded one.

    #16095

    siege_king
    Participant

    Maybe I’m blind, but I only see a port for listening to itunes, not for the webserver. Here is part of my mt-daapd.conf:

    [general]

    #
    # web_root (required)
    #
    # Location of the admin web pages. If you installed from
    # ipk, this is correct
    #

    web_root = /shares/mss-hdd/__opt/share/mt-daapd/admin-root

    #
    # port (required)
    #
    # What port to listen on. It is possible to use a different
    # port, but this is the default iTunes port
    #

    port = 3689

    #
    # admin_pw (required)
    #
    # This is the password to the administrative pages
    #
    # YOU SHOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THIS
    #

    admin_pw = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Or do I change that somewhere else?
    Got svn1696

    Thanks for helping me!

    #16096

    rpedde
    Participant

    @siege_king wrote:

    Hi everyone,
    it would be nice to have an option to set the port of the admin sites. So that I could only open a port for sharing music over the internet and not my admin site.

    Greetings

    The admin port and the sharing port are the same because it’s essentially free. Moving it to another port would be another listener, and it would be fatter.

    It’s doable, but I just never considered it because it seemed too fat. Maybe a decent compromise would be putting tcpwrapper-like controls over the admin pages.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.