(Default: flock)
[Mon May 3 10:13:29 2004] [alert] Child 51086 returned a Fatal error...
Apache is exiting!
My test setup is FreeBSD 5.2.1 and Apache 1.3.29 with suexec.
I guess this might be an issue for an Apache mailinglist unless initgroups is part
of the FreeBSD system. Does anyone know
)
[Mon May 3 10:13:29 2004] [alert] Child 51086 returned a Fatal error...
Apache is exiting!
My test setup is FreeBSD 5.2.1 and Apache 1.3.29 with suexec.
I guess this might be an issue for an Apache mailinglist unless initgroups is part of
the FreeBSD system. Does anyone know this?
- Mikkel
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,
On May 3, 2004, at 12:42 PM, Marty Landman wrote:
Maybe this is a foolish question, but how can reasonable security on a
server running Windows/Apache be achieved?
I'm not convinced that Windows can be configured to offer
Internet-reachable services with reasonable security, but excluding
that
On Monday 03 May 2004 16:42, Marty Landman wrote:
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.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:30:36PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
suexec is a pig to configure, complex and poorly documented. I think that's
at least partly why the world runs away from CGI and towards stuff like
JSP/PHP
Which you need to run as CGIs if you need them to run as different
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.
When
