So you don't think it's a good idea to warn idiot sysadmins if they set up memcached in the one way it was never ever ever intended to be setup? I disagree. If people would RTFM, we wouldn't need the acronym. Checking the address that is being bound would only incur a cost at startup, and could help the users of sites that hire idiot sysadmins (who have plenty of ways to get themselves fired without risking other people's personal information).
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Brian Moon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/7/10 7:09 AM, samwyse wrote: >> >> I've just now suggested this on Slashdot: At startup, issue a big >> multi-line warning if the IP addresses that are getting bound aren't >> on the loopback address or a private internet. The private internets >> are defined in RFC 1918 as: >> >> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix) >> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) >> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) > > That would be a knee jerk reaction to a poorly worded headline on Slashdot > because some idiot sysadmins at some high profile sites should be fire for > setting up memcached in the one way it was never ever ever intended to be > setup. > > -- > > Brian. > -------- > http://brian.moonspot.net/ >
