Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 12:42:33 -0400 From: Marty Landman <MLandman@face2interface.com> To: Joe Rhett <jrhett@isite.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Suexec with Apache 1.3.29 Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20040503114633.01f0be98@mail.newdiets.com> In-Reply-To: <20040503053729.GC23559@isite.net> References: <200404262126.36157.mikkel@talkactive.net> <200404291406.58150.mikkel@talkactive.net> <6.0.0.22.0.20040429101444.0e68a6a0@pop.face2interface.com> <200404291713.13999.mikkel@talkactive.net> <6.0.0.22.0.20040429140657.11cf1120@pop.face2interface.com> <20040503053729.GC23559@isite.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:37 AM 5/3/2004, Joe Rhett wrote: >On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 02:20:14PM -0400, Marty Landman wrote: > > On the side, this makes me wonder what the philosophy is on Windows > servers > > where the whole permissions concept is nonexistent afaik. > >Because suexec isn't really possible in that environment, so they have no >options at all. Maybe this is a foolish question, but how can reasonable security on a server running Windows/Apache be achieved? If the answer is what I fear, do you think that the 'native' MS server, IIS can be configured more securely than Apache? Looking at it in another way, is it possible to have a secure, network accessible server of any type w/o the Unix style permissions concept in place? Marty Landman Face 2 Interface Inc. 845-679-9387 Web Installed Formmailer: http://face2interface.com/Products/Formal.shtml FormATable DB: http://face2interface.com/Products/FormATable.shtml Make a Website: http://face2interface.com/Home/Demo.shtml
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.0.22.0.20040503114633.01f0be98>