Re: [PHP] suhosin and 5.4 onwards

[email protected] (Daniel)
Newsgroups php.general
Message-ID <CAJ5Hi2i6MOGak7Wyrm9JeW21FFhQktf_t2v-5zrpcb+DjDaj=w@mail.gmail.com>
Well I do not use suhosin as I can lock down PHP with things like
disable_function, disable_classes along with more advance function
such as chroot and mod_security.

On 8/3/13, Nick Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, so I know this might start flame wars, but... here goes ;)
>
> It seems suhosin  is dead as far as 5.4 goes, now, some make
> allegations that it is no longer needed since php has allegedly
> incorporated much of its safe guards, but these claims are from self
> proclaimed experts (a term i use very loosley) on forums and blogs.
>
> So, is the general opinion here, from actual "factual experience"  and
> not because you read the same trashy bloggers as I did,  in agreeance?
>  is it genuinely true that suhosin is now irrelevant with 5.4 upwards
> and php is now much safer on its own?
>
> We have always appreciated its work to stop plugins and so forth
> escaping local jails by example   open_base  or some other lock-down
> type setting, plus injections and so forth.
>
> if php has incorporated such, thats fine, but I have no idea where to
> turn to ask for factual information on this, so I'm asking here and
> hope that a dev or someone in the inner circle knows the facts, and
> not rumours or sumizes, or a tleast more facts than half the self
> appointed gurus claim :)
>
> Thanks
> Nikki
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Daniel Fenn
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.