|
|
| Applications |
| Mailing Lists |
| Miscellaneous |
| Operating Systems |
| Programming |
Re: alternatives to suexec in etch apache2
From: Thomas Goirand <thomas(at)goirand.fr>
Date: Sun Feb 17 2008 - 00:16:04 EST
>
> i've never liked suexec. it's way to rigid and unconfigurable. and,
> unfortunately, the way it expects vhosts to be set up (esp. directory
> layout) is completely unlike the way i set mine up.
>
> i used cgiwrap for a long while, it's far more flexible.
Date: Sun Feb 17 2008 - 00:16:04 EST
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 01:13:35PM -0500, Dan MacNeil wrote:
>> Under sarge, woody & potato we ran modified version of suexec that >> skipped the check for group writable cgi files.
>
> i've never liked suexec. it's way to rigid and unconfigurable. and,
> unfortunately, the way it expects vhosts to be set up (esp. directory
> layout) is completely unlike the way i set mine up.
>
> i used cgiwrap for a long while, it's far more flexible.
Have you ever try sbox-dtc, that I maintain, for which I contributed (the SID version now has a config file that I load with libdotconf), and that is also in Stable? How is it compared to cgiwrap? Does cgi-wrap supports chroot of the cgi-bin, and does it do setlimit() calls ?
Thomas
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.orgReceived on Sun Feb 17 00:33:25 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 19 2008 - 06:52:56 EDT
|
Contact Us Legal Notices Order Services Online Pantek Home Privacy Policy IT news Site Map Pantek Library |