Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
>>I mean, it isn't as if anything new would have to be added to
>>m0n0wall, nor would there be any kind of security or overhead
>>problems. In fact I can't see that anything at all would change for a
>>user choosing not to serve any files in this manner?
>>
>>Please explain to me what I'm missing here?
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Adam.
>>
>>
>>P.S. About binary files in XML: I'm not aware of a standardized way of
>>doing this (as in "part of the XML standard"), but I guess a simple UU
>>encoding or similar would do the trick? (Nice idea by the way, even if
>>it could be said to be a bit "dirty".)
> 
> 
> I'm not saying I'm for it, but I think this is the only way to do it without
> changing the way mono works now... think I mentioned before, the httpd in
> monowall doesn't serve ANYTHING except index.php.
> 
> Making it serve an image would require changing that. IF however, the
> index.php could generate the image from code stored in the config (not that
> I'm advocating this!) then at least you wouldn't have to change the httpd -
> which I'm assuming is the way it is for a reason.
> 
> m/
> 

OK, I wasn't aware that mini_httpd didn't serve anything but 
index.php? If that is truly the case, and that it would furthermore 
require modification of binaries to change that behaviour, I certainly 
wouldn't suggest that it be done for this reason.

But how then does it work, when I enter [my m0n0 IP]/status.php or 
.../exec.php???


Adam.