8
Quote:
The problem is XOOPS_TRUST_PATH
I agree. For some (valid security) reason GIJOE is pushing the envelope on this but until Xoosphere or whatever it will be called implements this methodology, it is a pain to have to install in two seperate places.
I also have experience of hosters that won't allow creation of folders outside of the web root (although in 3dPixelnets case, they can be convinced of the efficacy of doing it.)
However, more importantly I don't believe that Protector should be included in the core because:
1/ The core should be solely concerned with data and content manipulation and data security (i.e. input and output via the website)
2/ Security is fast evolving field, it is better to allow some good people like GIJOE to concentrate on the security layer that is around any good web site (i.e it doesn't matter what CMS flavour you use, Protector like security should be employed.)
And let's not forget the spam blocking capabilities of the NetQuery module. I employ both Protector and Netquery on all my sites to good effect. I just wish Protector could take on the spam blocking functionality of Netquery 'cus apart from that none of my sites need the core functionality of Netquery (good though it is.)
Despite all the security in place however, the hackers only get cleverer each day. I had one of my sites hacked last week. They managed to impersonate the hosting account name and load spam email sending software into the server's /tmp directory. They didn't touch my website. Not sure that XOOPS internal security, Protector or Netquery is ever going to stop the really determined hacker.