Jump to content

HTTP/403 forbidden (missing images) on some profile avatars


Featured Posts

In the last minute or so I am getting missing profile photos/avatars including my own.

 

They are throwing HTTP/403 access forbidden.

 

Some are still visible but these may be locally cached at my end.  Has a media server fallen over or has something been altered on the permissions tables?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expanding:

 

https://www.canalworld.net/forums/uploads/monthly_2017_04/drbobsmall.thumb.jpg.ead60734162ab399a69218c14bf30b86.jpg is visible

 

https://www.canalworld.net/forums/uploads/profile/photo-thumb-21644.jpg is not

Just now, MJG said:

Not getting the error but some avatars are not loading.

You are.  That won't display in your browser as anything but a missing image, but is actually what is happening at the server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Further expanding:

 

All missing images are under the https://www.canalworld.net/forums/uploads/profile/ path.

 

All visible ones are not.

 

The script Invision created to move images to and from AWS did not move all images within the /forums/uploads/profile directory. I had to manually move the contents of the folder to resolve the issue.

 

Please let me know if you see any further issues.

 

Cheers

 

RichM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RichM said:

The script Invision created to move images to and from AWS did not move all images within the /forums/uploads/profile directory. I had to manually move the contents of the folder to resolve the issue.

 

Please let me know if you see any further issues.

 

Cheers

 

RichM

No worries Rich,

 

Report this as an issue to Invision though - it looked sloppy until you spotted it and fixed it, and they should have tested something as critical as a transfer script before deploying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

No worries Rich,

 

Report this as an issue to Invision though - it looked sloppy until you spotted it and fixed it, and they should have tested something as critical as a transfer script before deploying.

Maybe the guys that wrote it just got the boot from TSB......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MJG said:

Maybe the guys that wrote it just got the boot from TSB......

 

Lol I was wondering that too.

 

£1.7m reward for failure. This really does seem wrong doesn't it? How much would he have been paid if the upgrade had gone well, one wonders.,.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.