perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Perrin Harkins <>
Subject Re: mod_perl File Extension Configuration instead of a Path Configuration
Date Mon, 03 May 2004 21:55:16 GMT
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 17:24, JupiterHost.Net wrote:
> So if I did it the .mpl way then /usr/foo/bar.mpl and /usr/foo/baz.mpl 
> will run as nobody (IE untrusted user with less privileges)

If that's who your server runs as, then yes.  The "nobody" user has the
same privileges as any other user the systems I'm familiar with.  That
user typically has no login, but may have permission to write to certain
directories, etc.

> (Regular .pl scripts currently run under suexec which I know mod_perl 
> can't do since you can't split up a single process like that, will that 
> hiinder mod_perl from running?)

I'm not sure what you're asking.  If you add something to your conf to
make all of your .pl scripts run through mod_perl, they won't run
through suexec anymore.  You would have to keep them as CGI for that to
work.  If you set it up to run some directories through CGI and some
through mod_perl, that will work fine.

> Which is just as [in]secure as /home/foo/ , 
> /home/foo/stuff/, /home/foo/public_html/, correct?

Running them under mod_perl is less secure in the sense that anyone can
write a script that messes around with globals, redefines core perl
fuctions, etc. and messes up other people's scripts, since they are all
running in the same interpreter.  You really should not run untrusted
code under mod_perl without isolating it to its own apache server.

> (Maybe more secure since 'nobody' has less privs than 'foo', correct?)

Again, "nobody" is just another user.

- Perrin

Report problems:
Mail list info:
List etiquette:

View raw message