Check it out

[rojkii]

http://www.business-websites.at/

I just stumble on this site and it uses WB.

[albatros]

Hi,

very clean and nice Design. I like it, but...

I didn`t find any information or link about WebsiteBaker. Not an in your frontend, not in your backend. I think, you only forgot some informations, didn`t you?

regards

uwe

[rojkii]

Yeah. The footer at the back-end was removed. This is not my work though. Just saw it from a link while browsing cssmania and I was surprised it's using WB. When I saw that links are located at /pages/ I went to look at the back-end... It was nice, though has no credits to WB.

[albatros]

Uuuups, I am sorry. I missunderstood something.
Maybe working in the garden under the sun was not so good for my one grey cell. 

Regards

Uwe

[kweitzel]

That is clearly a violation of the license ...

cheers

Klaus

[sboots]

That is clearly a violation of the license ...

Actually, according to the features page it's not actually required, which was a very mature decision on the part of the developers, I think.  It's pretty cool of them to give WB users that much freedom.

Total freedom - only requirements besides those in the GNU GPL are the need to retain the copyright notice on Administration footer - no need for "link-back's" to our website (although it is much appreciated)

...that being said of course, linking back to WB is the least I can do to say thanks to the WB people for all their awesome work.  WebsiteBaker is the sweetest CMS I have ever used, and I am honoured to link back to the site and to tell anyone who asks how great WB is.  That the developers don't force me to do that just makes me admire them and their work more.

One day I hope to actually contribute some code or something useful back to the project, but I'm not that talented yet... 

[kweitzel]

@sboots:

If you look at your standart footer for the login page, you'll find that there is this:

WebsiteBaker  is released under the GNU General Public License

This is the piece which needs to be staying, like you quoted above. That is missing on the site.

Total freedom - only requirements besides those in the GNU GPL are the need to retain the copyright notice on Administration footer - no need for "link-back's" to our website (although it is much appreciated)

cheers

Klaus

[sboots]

Whoa - good call.  I didn't know they had taken out the Admin footer notice.  Not cool.

Sorry 'bout that.  I should have read the discussion more carefully!

I hope this company isn't passing of WB as something they made.  That would be really terrible.

[tomhung]

@sboots:

If you look at your standart footer for the login page, you'll find that there is this:

WebsiteBaker  is released under the GNU General Public License

This is the piece which needs to be staying, like you quoted above. That is missing on the site.

Total freedom - only requirements besides those in the GNU GPL are the need to retain the copyright notice on Administration footer - no need for "link-back's" to our website (although it is much appreciated)

cheers

Klaus

I absolutely HATE this requirement.  The reason is that it lets spiders know they CMS i'm using.  I have NO problems leaving all the WB branding / GPL info inside the admin interface.  Those people who are in there should know that its WB not the world.  I have had other websites of mine hacked purely because they were able to see what CMS I was using and run a known exploit against it. 

My way around this is to .htaccess the /admin/ so you have to have a password to even get there.  Then you can see all the branding / link backs / license agreements you want, IF you know the password.

</rant>
G

[kweitzel]

1) .htaccess is always a good idea to do
2) you can also rename the admin folder, just remember to update the confi file as well to reflect this change (if the path is not known ...)
3) make a robots file, which disallows spidering in certain folders or only allowes it in the pages directory ...

With these steps you will not expose the CMS you are using easily ... but it can still be found. just not as hard. Anyway, In more than a year I am working with WB I haven't seen a prooven hack of WB although a couple of people claimed so ... funnily enough, the files of hacked systems where deleted without any backups (and without any prove).

cheers

Klaus

[tomhung]

you are correct about the current exploits against WB and its track record.  1 per year is pretty damn good if you ask me.

http://www.frsirt.com/english/vendor/6634

personally robots.txt just tells the hax0rz where to look.