httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.2.15 says You do not have permission to view [this file]
Date Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:13:07 GMT
Unfortunately, an awful lot of posts on forums, and "apache help"  
websites is either utter nonsense, or people more concerned with "just  
get it working" than actually doing things right.

On Jul 30, 2010, at 9:40 AM, James Godrej wrote:

> Sander,
> Thanks for such detailed reply.
> I have seen on many forums and use groups people tell to
> chown apache:apache /var/www
> or
> chown nobody:nobody /var/www
> chown www-data:www-data /var/www
>
> If some one is reading from the documentation team I will suggest  
> include Sander's reply to the appropriate page.
> This is what is needed to be known.
>
> I have seen reply's on forums where people kept their Document Root  
> in home directory and
> the similar problems which original poster posted in this thread
> were solved on other forums by changing the permissions they way I  
> said.
> Thanks for the detailed reply.
>
>
>
> From: Sander Temme <sctemme@apache.org>
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, 30 July, 2010 12:43:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.2.15 says You do not have  
> permission to view [this file]
>
> James,
>
> The Apache HTTP Server needs read access to its configuration files  
> and the files it serves.  In and of itself, the server does not need  
> write access anywhere on the system: even its log files are opened  
> for write when the server is still root, and the open file  
> descriptors passed to the child processes which change their user id  
> to the lesser privileged user.
>
> Read access only.  The web server user should not own, or be able to  
> write to, its configuration files or content.
>
> Content, other than CGI scripts, generally does not need Execute  
> permissions.  Even PHP files that are interpreted by the server do  
> not need to be Executable.
>
> Certain applications, especially publishing platforms and Content  
> Management Systems that you manage and populate through the web  
> server itself using a browser, require that certain directories on  
> the system be made writable by the web server user.  You can do this  
> by changing the owner of the directory to that user (usually www but  
> ymmv), or by making the directory group-writable and changing the  
> group to the group as which Apache runs.
>
> Making directories writable by the web server should be done only  
> with care and consideration.  The usual threat model is that someone  
> manages to upload (for instance) a PHP script of their own making  
> into the document root, and simply executes that by accessing it  
> through a browser.  Now someone is executing code on your machine.   
> Google for 'r57' for an example of what such code can do.
>
> If a web app needs writable directories, it's often better to have  
> those outside the DocumentRoot: that way the uploads can't be  
> accessed from the outside through a direct URL.  Some applications  
> (Wordpress for instance) support this, others do not.
>
> In many cases, writable directories are not strictly necessary even  
> though the web app might like them: rather than upload plugins  
> (which contain code that gets executed or interpreted, yech!)  
> through the web browser, upload them through ssh and manually unpack  
> them on the server.  The CMS Joomla! likes to write its  
> configuration file to the Document Root on initial install (which  
> promptly becomes a popular attack target) but if it can't write to  
> the Document Root, it will output the config to the browser to the  
> user can manually upload it.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> S.
>
> On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:35 PM, James Godrej wrote:
>
> > This I understand.
> > But then do other users  not need read write permissions.
> > There is hardly any thing given on this page
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/misc/ 
> security_tips.html#serverroot
> > You mentioned ServerRoot not be chowned to Apache.
> > But if not then to what should it be and there is nothing about  
> Document Root to be chowned ?
> > Who should own the Document Root there are many applications I  
> download from internet in their README pages it says
> > to chown those directories to apache.
> > Otherwise it never worked.
> > What should I do in this situation?
> >
> > From: Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com>
> > To: users@httpd.apache.org
> > Sent: Thu, 29 July, 2010 10:45:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.2.15 says You do not have  
> permission to view [this file]
> >
> > > Oh man an experienced sys admin told me to do it that way.
> > > Please tell me what is wrong in this and where is this  
> documented on Apache
> > > docs.
> > > I want to read.
> >
> >
> > This is a general principle -- don't grant more access than  
> necessary.
> > Apache doesn't need to own files to be able to serve (read) them.
> >
> >  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server  
> Project.
> > See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> >  "  from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sander Temme
> sctemme@apache.org
> PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007  EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server  
> Project.
> See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>   "  from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
>

--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com




Mime
View raw message