Joshua:Consistency be damned! As one example of how unproductive that consistency is, I'm now forced to replace just that ONE ".svservers.com" partial hostname denial with ELEVEN - and probably counting - separate IP address denials! These are all addresses used by one person or perhaps a small intimate group. Now extrapolate that burden to all the other partial IP addresses that I similarly want to deny.
Isn't that a wonderful extra burden to place on my server just for the sake of algorithmic and syntactic consistency between two directives? If I had access and motivation, I'd start an argument about it with the developer of that bit of code.
Mark -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: <directory> and deny directives From: Joshua Slive <joshua@xxxxxxxx> To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Friday, September 14, 2007 09:08:30 AM
On 9/14/07, Mark A. Craig <mark.a.craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:It would sure be nice if the code didn't pull a non-intuitive stunt like this, though! If the DNS lookup resolves to the specified *partial* hostname, it should act on it, not second-guess it with an rDNS like this.Yes, it is non-intuitive. But on the other hand, it is much more common to use hostnames for Allow directives than for Deny directives (since the hostname is often under the control of the attacker). You MUST check the forward and reverse for Allow directives, or else they would be worthless. And then it could potentially cause even more confusion if the Allow and Deny directives matched differently. Joshua.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|