Re: Should we drop the fully qualified server name requirement?

On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 23:01 +0100, Kinkie wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Henrik Nordstrom
> <henrik_at_henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
> > Squid has since forever insisted on the local server name to be a fully
> > qualified hostname. However, in most cases this does not really matter
> > and is a big headache for less experienced admins.
> >
> > Is there really any reason to keep this as a strict requirement, or
> > should we downgrade it to just a logged warning? I vote for turning
> > this into a warning..
>
> I'd rather keep it as is.

Would removing the requirement open more doors for malicious attacks via
"looking like normal" URLs? For example, is it easier for somebody with
local access to change the name resolution for "citi" than for
"citi.com"?

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Thu Dec 11 2008 - 19:54:01 MST