perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "JupiterHost.Net" <>
Subject Re: mod_perl File Extension Configuration instead of a Path Configuration
Date Mon, 03 May 2004 22:24:30 GMT

Perrin Harkins wrote:

> 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.

cool, gotcha

>>(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.

That's it exactly :)
If .pl run as regular scripts under suexec they'll be run as 'foo' 
instead of 'nobody' but any mod_perl scripts will be run as 'nobody'
but neither will break the other...

>>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.

I see, perhaps I need to look into setting it up to run theri own 
mod_perl apache so they can shoot them self in the foot instead of others :)

>>(Maybe more secure since 'nobody' has less privs than 'foo', correct?)
> Again, "nobody" is just another user.
> - Perrin

Thanks for the great info!

Report problems:
Mail list info:
List etiquette:

View raw message