[libdb-develop] Installation: installer.cgi, not installer/index.cgi?
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
morbus
From: Morbus I. <mo...@di...> - 2004-02-07 00:06:35
|
How do people feel about /installer.cgi compared to installer/index.cgi? A quick reading by one tester had him loading /index.cgi, due to the similarities of the filename. The prime reason for using installer/index.cgi was the ability to say "now, delete the entire installer/ directory to prevent malicious users from overwriting your database". But, it'd be just as easy for me to say "delete the installer/ directory", and have the installer.cgi fail if that directory doesn't exist. Then, they'll be less confusion with /installer.cgi compared to installer/index.cgi, both in the "what file do I set permissions on", and "what file do I load in my browser". Thoughts? -- Morbus Iff ( shower your women, i'm coming ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus |