On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Erik Abele wrote:
Just to prevent any misunderstandings: are we talking about a 2.2
*alpha* or *beta* release here, or what will it be called? If it's in
any way marked as *unstable*, then a clear +1 from my side. The recent
changes are definitely worth to get tested in
Patch attachted arose in two parts; originally it was a trivial patch
to allow SuexecUserGroup directives in directory blocks, because
a few people needed it, not least a large client ;) It effectively
means it's possible to execute different parts of a [virtual] host
as different users.
The
*mutters something about not liking being responsible for a segfault*
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:22:32AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Setting lr to NULL causes a seg-fault if the port was already
in use, and didnt do what it was intended to anyway since the
for loop terminates on lr ==
Listen 80 just works now, using v4-only, v6-only, mapped address
or non-mapped addresses.
Index: configure.in
===
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.254
diff -u -u -r1.254 configure.in
---
Seems like a plan.
Do we then migrate from 2.0 to 2.2 for our *stable* tree? Some extra
clarification might be nice...
david
- Original Message -
From: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:48 PM
Subject: Time for 2.2?
Looking at
Hello All,
I tested the source code of httpd-2.0.47, with tool pscan (format bug
scanner) and possible
security flaws is found!
Please, anybody can check if this is real problem of security?
Thanks.
Ranier Vilela
RC Software Ltda.
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 06:24:04AM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Hello All,
I tested the source code of httpd-2.0.47, with tool pscan (format bug
scanner) and possible
security flaws is found!
Please, anybody can check if this is real problem of security?
This kind of vulnerability is only
