Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

AFAIK Apache itself isn't vulnerable, because it probably doesn't invoke a shell. CGI apps it invokes might, which is how the vulnerability is triggered.



I think it depends on the situation, at least that is what I've gleaned from my reading of it

if you run a .php file and you have mod_php or the webserver has understanding of the concept of PHP and calls the binary directly, all nice and good

if you have a something.randomext or something without an extension at all, then... whelp

luckily there is a program that is dedicated to working out how to run random executable files, the shell (and it uses the shell-bang, or shbang for short), so in that situation, the call will be done though the shell


My understanding is that Apache starts CGI apps in environments with variables for things like HTTP_USER_AGENT that are set by random people on the internet through Apache.


Yes, because that is what the CGI spec demands.

There is nothing inherently insecure in that: The environment is just a bunch of strings.

Whether or not it is insecure depends 100% on the CGI that gets executed. Which programs that is 100% down to the person configuring the website.

Apache does not even have a theoretical way to ensure those applications does not do anything stupid with the data no matter the method used to pass it.

You have the simple solution if you are concerned about environment variable passing of not trusting mod_cgi. Most people have not used it for years anyway, because of the performance impact.


Yes, the CGI spec is obviously broken. Clearing a environment ala Postfix or using a socket would have been the obvious fix in the 90s.


> because it probably doesn't invoke a shell

Some people write cgi in bash.

Yeah.


Yeah, I meant Apache itself doesn't invoke a shell.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: