Re: HTTP redirectors

>  However, running this kind of local proxy or a general chaining
>  proxy does require root access.  Most systems will not let you
>  create a low-numbered socket unless you are root.  So this is not
>  something which people will be able to do from their user
>  accounts.

Normally a URL can specify an alternate port as well (of course).  A common  
one is http://site.org:8080/dir/file.html...   This gets around setting up  
the proxy without a privileged account.  The only web browser I'm familiar  
with (OmniWeb for NeXTSTEP) also allows you to specify the port number for  
the proxy.  I was under the impression that all browsers supported alternate  
port numbers for proxies since they are commonly used for URLs...  Do Mosiac  
and Netscape allow specifying the port for proxy servers?


andrew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Andrew Lowenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com> writes:

>Normally a URL can specify an alternate port as well (of course).  A common  
>one is http://site.org:8080/dir/file.html...   This gets around setting up  
>the proxy without a privileged account.  The only web browser I'm familiar  
>with (OmniWeb for NeXTSTEP) also allows you to specify the port number for  
>the proxy.  I was under the impression that all browsers supported alternate  
>port numbers for proxies since they are commonly used for URLs...  Do Mosiac  
>and Netscape allow specifying the port for proxy servers?

Yes, I think you are right.  I think you can set your proxy to
site.org:8080 or whatever and clients will use the specified port
number.  This is at least true of lynx, and I think they all use pretty
much the same conventions on this.

So I was mistaken in saying that you would need root privileges to set up
your own proxy.  And I don't see that it would be much of a security
hole in that it would be no more privileged than the user who ran it.
Most security concerns come because httpd is running as a privileged
process, I think.  An http redirector shouldn't be much more trouble than
a remailer, although the user who is running it would want some assurance
that his own files wouldn't be threatened.

Hal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQBVAwUBLvePsxnMLJtOy9MBAQFehwH/VQ3vCTDL/uGFJidXYnKca4NV+1kK/bQU
5WUFxNl3Qhk2t/zKPUxBnOunkpLXArhQW0TCIb5wDk54Wskh1q2iBA==
=Yufk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----