Hi,
I'd supply a patch, but I don't know which of:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/core.html#virtualhost
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/name-based.html
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/ ...
is appropriate.
I believe the statement:
If a <VirtualHost> block does not contain a ServerName statement the hostname
of the computer will be used.
Should be added.
Why?
It explains the default behavior.
If someone has a misconfigured VirtualHost it can possibly hijack the
configuration for the hostname defined VirtualHost.
Assume a configuration using
Include /etc/apache2/sites-enabled/[^.#]*
that has a, perhaps vendor supplied, 000-default or default that does not
have a ServerName specified. For example:
000-default or default file:
<VirtualHost *:80>
# No Server Name definition
DocumentRoot /var/www/
# ... other directives
</VirtualHost>
hostname.domain.tld file:
<VirtualHost *:80>
ServerName hostname.domain.tld
DocumentRoot /var/www/hostname
# ... other directives
</VirtualHost>
Contrary to their expectation the content stored at /var/www/hostname
would never be served. Instead the content at the DocumentRoot defined
in the 000-default or default file would be served.
Note, this could happen with any configuration where the file for
a misconfigured VirtualHost is loaded before the one containing the
definition where ServerName equals `hostname`.
Thank you for considering this suggestion.
--
Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon
Be appropriate && Follow your curiosity
http://www.patch.com/words/
The fortune cookie says:
Excuse me, but didn't I tell you there's NO HOPE for the survival of
OFFSET PRINTING?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
