From: sameer <sameer@c2.org>
Message-Id: <199602031143.DAA04479@infinity.c2.org>
Subject: Re: How about mixing BindAddress and VirtualHost???
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 03:43:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960202171629.6381D-100000@bauhaus.organic.com>
 from "Cliff Skolnick" at Feb 2, 96 05:21:41 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> 
> Now we could just have apache do a binch of seperate binds for the set of 
> virtualhost directives, but I hope this is not the default behavior.  It 
> is kind of nice having a sane default behavior, instead of "server not 
> responding" when you try and get a page from an address configured on the 
> machine with no specific virtualhost directive.

	I'd actually prefer this to be the default, but we obviously
can't change it to that, because that would break people expecting current
default behavior.

	In any case, in addition to what Tony described, you also have
a security hole in that if you bind to INADDR_ANY someone else can
bind to a specific ip# right under you, and steal connections,
spoofing you. (You can spoof nfs this way, if your nfsd binds to
INADDR_ANY.) Allowing for multiple binds with virtualhosts i think is
good.. You'd have to have multiple sockets and select though, wouldn't
you?

-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-601-9777x3
Community ConneXion, Inc.			FAX:     510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider			Dialin:  510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest")		sameer@c2.org