Re^3: wget alternative

Thanks!

Beings that the script is being hosted on servers that don't belong to me, is it really ethically okay to execute the updates either by replacing modules or include()-ing them?

They'd be eval{ }-ed and it'd only do so when prompted, so it's not a matter of CAN I, but more of a SHOULD I allow Perl to execute code from an external source?

Comment on Re^3: wget alternative

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: wget alternative by ww (Archbishop) on Jul 15, 2011 at 11:25 UTC
Not if you're using the system Perl and system libs! If you want to twiddle modules for yourself, that's one thing; but messing with the tools used by others on "servers that don't belong to (you)" is waaaay wrong. And the scenario outlined in your initial post (at least as I understand it) means you plan to allow users -- without limits -- to modify an executable script... which is sort of a wee, small security problem. Perhaps you should tell us what you're really trying to accomplish, on the chance that some Monk can offer a better approach.	[reply]
Re^5: wget alternative by mmitchell (Initiate) on Jul 15, 2011 at 16:18 UTC
Perhaps that'd be a good idea :) Basically, its a small custom web content management system. The idea is to allow "easy" download and installation of updates and modules -- in Click-To-Run fashion. Mainly because my users aren't very savvy. But, I'm thinking that the risks outweigh the benefits.	[reply]
Re^6: wget alternative by pemungkah (Priest) on Jul 17, 2011 at 01:19 UTC
Hugely. If someone does manage to break in, then you've handed them a nice mechanism for downloading and installing stuff too. Better to work out a maintenance agreement with your users, if there aren't too many, or set things up so they can specifically download and reinstall on their own hook (WordPress-style).	[reply]
Re^7: wget alternative by mmitchell (Initiate) on Jul 18, 2011 at 14:42 UTC