|
|
Posted by Gordon Burditt on 09/21/07 23:05
>> You cannot, for example, have multiple instances of Apache listening on
>> port 80 of a single IP address, and I thought assigning 255 IP addresses
>> to a single web server went out with browsers that don't understand
>> HTTP/1.1 and the Host: header.
>>
>
>I didn't say anything about multiple instances on port 80, did I?
>
>There are 65,535 ports available - and all but the first 4096 (0-4095)
>are available to anyone who wants them. Port 80 just happens to be the
>default port for the http: protocol.
Have you ever seen an advertised (with paid advertising) URL for a
non-default port? Nobody's going to take it seriously, or even
type it correctly. It might be OK if you also own the one on port
80 and the only links to the other one are yours. It's also not
too bad for a purely testing site, but it's not one a hosting company
is actually going to be able to sell.
>>>>> It would seem, then, that I would want to give rwx permissions for the
>>>>> content files to that user alone (and myself), not do a chmod 777. Is
>>>>> that right?
>>>> Standard UNIX file permissions don't allow a file to have two owners.
>>>>
>>>> You don't normally want to give x permission to any *file* that a
>>>> web application can write on (as distinguished from *directory*,
>>>> which needs x permission). x permission is for executables and
>>>> shell scripts.
>>
>>
>>> So why not just throw the door wide open to any hacker who could upload
>>> to that file and run whatever scripts he wants? :-)
>>
>> You'd even consider allowing uploads via HTTP?
>>
>
>Sure. Protections can be established.
>
>
>--
>==================
>Remove the "x" from my email address
>Jerry Stuckle
>JDS Computer Training Corp.
>jstucklex@attglobal.net
>==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|