3 ms·
I'm torn on this feature. In the one hand, an application should never be able to replace itself with "random code" to be executed. I want my systems to be imm
by eliaspro 5y ago
I'm torn on this feature.
In the one hand, an application should never be able to replace itself with "random code" to be executed. I want my systems to be immutable. I want my services to be run with the smallest set of privileges required.
On the other hand, it encourages "consumer level" users to keep their software up-to-date, even when it wasn't installed from a distribution's repository etc.
So I think in general it's a good feature to have, as advanced users/distributions will restrict what a service/process is able to to anyways and won't have any downsides of not using this feature.
It should be optional, that's all!
- mholt 5y ago> an application should never be able to replace itself with "random code" to be executed. To clarify: it doesn't, nor has it ever worked that way. You have to be the one to do that (or someone with privileges to write to that file on disk). Most production setups don't give Caddy that permission. And you have to trigger the upgrade too.
- eliaspro 5y agoOk, this explains a lot and also clearly shows I never used this feature :) I always assumed it would be the Caddy process itself taking care of downloading the update & replacing the binary, before restarting it.
- mholt 5y agoCaddy 2 can do that at least, but it's something you have to command it to do. :)
- blibble 5y agoif you can log into the machine and replace the nginx executable you are probably capable of running it too