Re: privileges problem
On Sunday 24 June 2001 16:15, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> Also, stock 2.4.x series kernel limits supplementary groups to 32.
Good point!
> There would be a per-process penalty for increasing that limit. You
> could patch apache to include the supplemental groups when it forks
> children (if it does not do this already..), but overall that is a bad
> solution.
Such a patch would require that Apache keep root privs all the time.
Would you REALLY want this?
> If your users' data really can't be world-readable, your remaining
> option is to run seperate httpd's for customers with these large
> privacy concerns. Note that most of the time, though, your customers
> just don't want people copying their whole directory structures and
> stealing content whole-sale. This can be accomplished by other means,
> anyway, but you can give yor customers some comfort by simply
> instructing them to set all their directories with permissions o-r.
You can configure the FTP server and other ways of uploading content to
specify the permissions for them (customers will forget).
Separate web server instances is a really bad idea, it's a PITA to manage.
> Note that CGIs/SSIs will be a security concern for you. You had better
> use suEXEC or something else such that customers cannot execute their
> CGI programs as the user/group apache's children run as, if you rely on
> that for your privacy/security mechanism...
suexec and cgiwrap are both good solutions to this problem.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: