What I'm trying to find out is if root.root is a good idea? I assume it is or it wouldn't be the default. It just seems odd to me to have to become root in order to write either a html or cgi page.
Nathan E Norman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 02:56:34PM -0400, Ken Januski wrote: > > Steve, > > > > I guess I'm wondering if there's a good reason for a default of > > root.root. I prefer to work as root as little as possible so hate to > > become root in order to write any pages. > > > > Do you think www-data.www-data makes more sense? Do you know of a reason > > it's not www-data.www-data to begin with? > > www-data:www-data is an astoundingly bad idea since apache runs as > www-data:www-data. IOW, apache would be able to write to the files > (unless of course you chmod u-w the files (but why?)) > > This gets even worse when you think about cgi scripts. > > Cheers, > > -- > Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better > Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Patton > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
