Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) id DAA15090; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 03:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from twinlark.arctic.org by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.4/V2.0) with SMTP id DAA15085; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 03:36:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 2328 invoked by uid 500); 16 Feb 1997 11:37:09 -0000 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 03:37:09 -0800 (PST) From: Dean Gaudet To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: server dies if one vhost can't be resolved In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Actually, see my rant about DNS and security from last year :) It was condensed into some notes in about using DNS for vhosts can be insecure... although it might not be in your setup. Essentially the example I gave was a website provider with customers A and B. B does their own DNS. If the provider uses www.A.com and www.B.com in the statement then B can steal A's address depending on the ordering of the statements simply by changing DNS. This is facilitated by the fact that vhosts are searched last to first. At any rate, I'm not sure what the two line fix would be... I guess you could just stick 0.0.0.0 in as the address and assume it wouldn't ever match it. Dean On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Marc Slemko wrote: > Right now the entire server dies if one vhost can't be resolved. This is > very annoying. Don't suppose anyone is up for a two line fix that > magically makes things work? > >