perhaps we should a web2py/scripts/lock-web2py.sh
On Jun 10, 3:49 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > www-data needs write access to databases/cache/sessions etc. IF a > hacker were able to gain access *somehow* and alter the databases > files, they can kill your entire system by forcing fake migrations or > other issues. Just make sure you have migrate=False and > fake_migrate=False and everything *should* be just fine. > > -- > Thadeus > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:01 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > None of these should be a problem. Mind that you will not be able to > > edit/install/uninstall apps using the web interface. > > > On Jun 10, 1:45 pm, Salvor Hardin <salvor.pub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We selected web2py over django and pylons to replace RoR. Luckily, > >> that project doesn't require paranoid security (hence our ability to > >> use RoR in the past.) > > >> But we're evaluating web2py to replace a Win32 GUI intranet app, and > >> preventing hacks on the server side, is pretty high on the priority > >> for that project. For example, we want to prevent user from modifying > >> web2py's .py files, etc. by exploiting security flaws in Python or > >> python modules. > > >> What are some ways to improve the security of web2py apps on > >> production servers? > > >> * Use mod_security and its Core Rule Set (no web2py compatibility > >> issues?) > > >> * Prevent Apache2 user (www-data) having write access or chmod rights > >> to web2py application files? > > >> * chown/chmod web2py files to require root access to upgrade to newer > >> web2py? > > >> I'm not asking for changes to web2py. I'm just looking for best > >> practices on projects that value security over certain features like > >> web-based upgrades or web-based deployment, etc. For example, > >> requiring root access to upgrade web2py would be seen as a benefit on > >> at least one project.
