httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Canavan <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] 2.4 named virtual hosts question
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:25:21 GMT

>> Additionally, if you bind any further vhosts to specific IP addresses, e.g.
>> <VirtualHost>, then that virtualhost will have precedence for
>> requests to over the *:80 virtualhost.
> In this case you'll have create separate default deny configuration for each
> IP address, right?
>> Overall, I'd say that such a construct is more likely to increase the attack surface
>> instead of reducing it.
> I don't think _denying_ something can _increase_ attack surface.

However, in this example, you'd add a virtualhost that may expose
globally configured resources without the individual access controls of
the "real" vhosts. On top of that, the additional vhost may not see any
significant testing in case of configuration changes.

> But since
> there's seemingly demand for this kind of configuration it'd be nice if
> community helped make it better and more secure. What extra steps do you
> think one should take to securely deny (and subsequently ban) clients
> (mostly bots) that do not even know domain name they are accessing?

Do _exactly_ that, e.g. with a RewriteRule to - and RewriteCond that
checks the Host: header. I'd guess that httpd 2.4 has more elegant means
to express this with actual "deny" directives, possibly combined with a

If you're really serious, you'd also have to make sure that any error messages
don't contain the hostname, and you'd have to set reverse DNS lookups to
point to a useless name. Overall I'd say that the negligible gain in
perceived security isn't worth the effort or the additional risks
(both regarding
security and availability).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message