httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Shea <>
Subject Re: Fork off a more feature full suexec?
Date Fri, 12 Mar 1999 04:04:38 GMT
David -- I have written a somewhat similar suexec-thing, although
perhaps not so ambitious.  My approach involves a config file which
tells suexec who to run the program as, as a function of location
in the filesystem.

I have patches for 1.3.3, will be releasing 1.3.5 ones pretty soon.

I'd be curious to see more of what you're doing, but I'd be far
more excited about getting an API into Apache that supports both
of us.


On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, David Harris wrote:
> I am writing my own suexec-like thingy to execute scripts as the user who
> owns them with the specific intent of replacing cgiwrap in my system setup.
> Basically taking suexec into the scary netherlands where more functionality
> exists.
> Advantages of my suexec-thingy over cgiwrap and/or suexec-standard:
> (1) Nice clean solution to the problem.
> (2) Reads the user from the file to be executed. This means no more
> one-user-per-VirtualHost restriction. To be more specific: programs whose
> name ends in "-set" are run as the owner of the file, while other programs
> are run as nobody. One could say this creates an "artificial setuid" by
> ending the program name in "-set".
> (3) Works with CGI mod_actions triggered interpreters such as php/fi - the
> shared interpreter CGI gets run as the user from the file it will execute.
> This requires a simple patch to mod_actions, to create a REDIRECT_FILENAME
> environment variable, and some strict checking of the environment passed to
> the approved CGI interpreter.
> (4) CGI debugging information over and above what cigwrap offers. This
> consists of spiting out the appropriate header, showing the form information
> (get and post) along with the environment, then duping STDOUT over STDERR
> and running the script. All this mess will actually be done by another
> program exec'ed by suexec.
> I am highly interested in sharing this work with the community, and perhaps
> developing it with a few people. This kind of programming is best worked on
> and reviewed by more than one set of eyes.
> I fully understand why the core wants to keep the current suexec code as
> simple as possible. That's why I think this needs to be broken off as a
> separate little development effort. The source of this suexec-thingy would
> not even be distributed in the Apache tarball - it would be as separate and
> apart as possible.
> Anyone interested?
>  - David Harris
>    Principal Engineer, DRH Internet Services

View raw message