It is possible. A virtual server can compile and run any services they
choose. Presently, they do have to ensure they listen on a port >1024,
although I am pleased to say we have been working on a kernel-based solution
(2.2.19) to the problem which removes the need for a redirector and will
allow Apache logs to work as nature intended.
The only problem with moving away from Apache is that you can then no longer
use the Apache module to manage typical hosting configuration. I don't know
what peoples opinions are, but, the next supported web server is likely to
be the one produced by those nice people at RedHat, Tux.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Wim Godden
> Sent: 04 September 2001 19:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How do they do it ?
>
>
> Well, you look at it from the perspective of protection from attacks.
> What I was inquiring about, was the easy of setup and the flexibility.
> Reading the site about Ensim's products, I read the user can actually
> decide to remove Apache and reinstall a different web server. Or simply
> recompile other options in Apache. With FreeVSD, that's impossible.
>
>
> Gregory A Lundberg wrote:
> >
> > > So what are the advantages/disadvantages of both systems ? Is FreeVSD
> > > better or is it just the fact that it's free ?
> >
> > Of the top of my head, I'd saw neither is better.
> >
> > FreeVSD's method has the advantage of not granting root
> privilege, but the
> > disadvantage that it needs to modify some things (which means
> FreeVSD might
> > _NOT_ modify something important). To gain full root access to your
> > machine, the FreeVSD user would need to crack root through one of the
> > applications available to them.
> >
> > Using hard partitions and allowing root access to the virtual
> hosts has the
> > advantage of not requiring nearly so much modification to your
> system, but
> > has the disadvantage that the user is already root, so breaking
> out into the
> > larger machine is much easier.
> >
> > I imagine a fully virtual system (where the entire system,
> kernel and all,
> > runs in a virtual machine) has the advantage of being even more flexible
> > (users could, for instance, choose to run FreeBSD, or even
> (gak) NT, on your
> > Intel hardware. The disadvantage is this is resource-intensive
> if you want
> > to host more than one or two virtual systems on your hardware.
> >
> > In none of these cases do you gain any advantage against defacements
> > attacks, many DoS attacks, or using your hardware as a launching pad to
> > attack others. The question boils down to simply being how
> hard it is for
> > one user to break out and effect other users or the machine at large.
> >
> > ------------------------- The freeVSD Support List
> --------------------------
> > Subscribe:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20freevsd-support
> Unsubscribe:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe%20freevsd-support
> Archives: http://freevsd.org/support/mail-archives/freevsd-support
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------------------------- The freeVSD Support
List --------------------------
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20freevsd-support
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe%20freevsd-support
Archives: http://freevsd.org/support/mail-archives/freevsd-support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------------------------- The freeVSD Support List --------------------------
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20freevsd-support
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe%20freevsd-support
Archives: http://freevsd.org/support/mail-archives/freevsd-support
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
