>Why do you think it would be hard to return AUTH_REQUIRED if the
>DEBUG=1 param is in the URL? Granted, the browser issues involved won't
>make it the best solution, but no worse than passwords are already. Someone
>would have to be using a machine where a valid uid/passwd are in browser
cache
* Todd Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010112 13:00]:
> At 12:07 PM 1/12/01, Blue Lang wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, J. J. Horner wrote:
> > > I'm also toying with the idea of allowing each script
> > to have a DEBUG=1
> > > option enabled in a handler so that as long as it is
> > the script owner,
At 12:07 PM 1/12/01, Blue Lang wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, J. J. Horner wrote:
> > I'm also toying with the idea of allowing each script
> to have a DEBUG=1
> > option enabled in a handler so that as long as it is
> the script owner,
> > verified by uid, trying to set the DEBUG=1 parameter in
* Blue Lang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010112 12:08]:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, J. J. Horner wrote:
>
> > I'm also toying with the idea of allowing each script to have a DEBUG=1
> > option enabled in a handler so that as long as it is the script owner,
> > verified by uid, trying to set the DEBUG=1 parame
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, J. J. Horner wrote:
> Is something available to allow debugging information to be sent
> to a browser based on the UID of the user or IP address of the
> client?
This sounds like a hack job for Carp.. I assume you mean uid of the
cgi-wrapped user?
> I'm also toying with the
Is something available to allow debugging information to be sent
to a browser based on the UID of the user or IP address of the
client?
We use cgiwrap (and consequently, cgiwrapd) to help secure our server
and I like the option of using cgiwrapd when a problem is encountered.
