[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Wrapping CGI and PHP Scripts




>
> >Does anyone know what the default document
> >root is for the Debian configuration of suexec?
>
> /var/www/
>
> To change the document root of suexec you need to recompile suexec see:
>
> http://communitysoftwarelab.org/sys/project.d/suexec.d/install.txt


If only this could be in a configuration file..........


>
> ###############
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Anand Atreya wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >     I have just recently begun using Debian and am in the process of
> > migrating a FreeBSD 4.4 server over to it.  This server had many
different
> > users and allowed them to execute CGI and PHP scripts in their
public_html
> > folder (or any folder under it) as their own user, not as the user of
the
> > webserver, using mod_cgiwrap and mod_phpcgiwrap (from Steven
Haryanto).  The
> > site where this was located
> > (http://steven.haryan.to/mod_cgiwrap/mod_cgiwrap.html) no longer
exists, and
> > in hindsight, it seems as if mod_cgiwrap was not a very secure
solution to
> > begin with.
> >     Does anybody have any recommendations on how to set up a virtual
hosting
> > Apache server such that users can have CGI and PHP scripts execute as
> > themselves, without having to put #!/usr/bin/php at the top of php
scripts,
> > and that is completely transparent to the user, also allowing them to
place
> > scripts anywhere in their document root?
> >     (I have tried using suexec as it is installed with the Debian
Apache
> > package, but when I tried to execute a script in a virtual host, not
using
> > the www.domain.com/~username address, it did not execute the script,
saying
> > it was not in the document root.  Does anyone know what the default
document
> > root is for the Debian configuration of suexec?)
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> > -- Anand Atreya
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>



Reply to: