--Thursday, January 22, 2004, 6:53:01 PM, you wrote to linux_4ever (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]:
BL> This is not a leak - mod_perl is a module that is compiled into Apache,
BL> and hence has access to all its resources (including memory). If you
BL> want to run untrusted Perl, then don't use mod_perl.
You're right: mod_perl is inside apache memory space and can access any
descriptor, so it's impossible to blame apache descriptor is leaked. But
you're wrong. mod_perl has access to memory, not perl script. At least,
it's possible to store descriptors table and implement check for
descriptor in every perl file/socket function inside mod_perl (and
mod_php and mod_something) and only allow access to std descriptors and
to descriptors open inside same script. The choice is between speed and
security.
--Thursday, January 22, 2004, 6:53:01 PM, you wrote to linux_4ever (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]:
BL> This is not a leak - mod_perl is a module that is compiled into Apache,
BL> and hence has access to all its resources (including memory). If you
BL> want to run untrusted Perl, then don't use mod_perl.
You're right: mod_perl is inside apache memory space and can access any
descriptor, so it's impossible to blame apache descriptor is leaked. But
you're wrong. mod_perl has access to memory, not perl script. At least,
it's possible to store descriptors table and implement check for
descriptor in every perl file/socket function inside mod_perl (and
mod_php and mod_something) and only allow access to std descriptors and
to descriptors open inside same script. The choice is between speed and
security.
--
~/ZARAZA
Êîãäà ïòè÷êà ïîãèáàåò îò îáæîðñòâà, åå íàíèçûâàþò íà âåðòåë. (Ëåì)
[ reply ]