Phil Howard wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:02, David Ricar wrote:
[...]
Sorry, I'm still not understanding what you are doing. I didn't
understand why you need two users per each site.
J. Greenlees wrote:
I believe the standard method of doing this to completely lock the
server from allo
David Ricar wrote:
Hello,
~snip~
So my concept is based on two basic users for every website - one for
ftp and another for suexec run. Homedir of both is one level above any
website data and it is owned by root, ftp is chrooted there. If suexec
would be able to just check if code is in users
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 13:02, David Ricar wrote:
[...]
Sorry, I'm still not understanding what you are doing. I didn't
understand why you need two users per each site.
--
sHiFt HaPpEnS!
-
The official User-To-User support f
Phil Howard wrote:
I don't understand what it is you are doing, so I cannot comment on
whether it is common or not, or even secure. A test to detect if
others can write a file that would be executed is a critical test on a
multi-user machine. Similarly, testing if all parent directories can
be
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:41, Mike Soultanian wrote:
> On 8/12/2010 9:33 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
>>
>> No backup staff ... ouch.
>
> budget cuts? :)
Down to one administrator, I assume.
> there is no plan to get them out of that folder -
> www.csulb.edu/colleges/cota is the final resting place,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 09:49, David Ricar wrote:
> I need just one thing: replace others writable tests by is_in_homedir
> test - suexec does not solve, who could rewrite the code, but where the
> code is located. My patch is rather naive and dirty proof of concept
> right now, I will polish it
On 8/12/2010 9:33 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
No backup staff ... ouch.
budget cuts? :)
If they have load balancing, the restarts can be made transparent.
Just disable the server from the load balancer, wait the prescribed
honestly, this is so far out of my area that I don't get involved. They
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:37, Mike Soultanian wrote:
>>> server - the problem is that it can't be done for another couple weeks
>>> (IT
>>> department won't do it right away as it involves restarting all of the
>>> servers and a whole change management process).
>>
>> Remind me to not ever set u
On 8/12/2010 6:28 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
Our current site is here on server F (failing server):
It looks like a whole different subnet, so I assume it is running
within your department.
Nope, different department with different admins. Plus, the
administrator for server F has taken a new jo
Phil Howard wrote:
By suexec wrapper, I mean a program you write which will be placed
where Apache expects to find suexec. The real suexec will be moved to
somewhere else (maybe "real-suexec" in the same directory). Your
program will know where it is (and probably hard code that). Your
program
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 19:27, Mike Soultanian wrote:
> Hi!
> I have three servers, all of which are running Apache: F is the failing
> server, P is the main production server, and I is the interim server.
>
> Our current site is here on server F (failing server):
>
> http://cota.csulb.edu
It loo
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 18:24, David Ricar wrote:
> Phil Howard wrote:
>>
>> For maintenance, it might be easier for you to make an suexec wrapper.
>> Run your wrapper to do custom checks and if it decides to go on, it
>> runs suexec. That way your maintenance is for your program, only, and
>> y
Error pages are set in apache configs too, so just change that line...
Matthew P. Smith wrote:
Hi, I have this in the conf:
DirectoryIndex index.cfm
I am running coldfusion 9. I am tyring to use the onMissingTemplate
function to call a custom 404. The application server does not invoke
13 matches
Mail list logo
