[Seaside] [Q] FastCGI + Squeak?
renggli at gmail.com
Tue Feb 21 06:08:47 UTC 2006
> Is it safe to assume that using the above rewrite rules won't get you
> past a setup where the Seaside webserver
> (aka squeak) is hidden behind a firewall and not directly accessible to
> the public, and that is when you'd use a
> reverse proxy setup which does the extra steps to be the go-between the
> user's browser session and the "other"
> web server (in this case squeak's)..
Yes, that's the case, if your rewrite rules are not buggy and we
assume that there are no security holes in Apache. I mean the rewrite
rule hardcodes the target port, there is no way to change that from
If have your firewall is blocking access to all ports except 80, your
images shouldn't be accessible directly but only trough apache.
> I believe that's ultimately the
> decision maker here (and perhaps slightly off topic)
> on whether to use a reverse proxy or just rewriting rules like those
> above. Please correct me if I'm wrong.. In the meantime
> I'll continue looking for ways to fix my reverse proxy setup so it works
> for all links..
I don't see an advantage of not using rewrite rules, not even security
wise. However that question should maybe be answered by an Apache
expert (not an Apache user like I am).
More information about the Seaside