[rekoil]

I get the thing about config reloads, I don't think it's worth it due to the security risks of the current default, but I get it.

Happy to hear you're moving to sockets by default on *nix!

However, I'd like to point out that the default should be in the binary, not in the distros default environment variables, otherwise it won't reach people who build their own binary, and depending on how you start your Caddy server you may clear environment variables for that process, and end up with the insecure HTTP-based admin endpoint enabled by accident.

[francislavoie]

The only default that works on all platforms is a TCP socket. We can't write to unix socket file by default because the path to the socket needs to be writable, and there's no single default that has any guarantee to work. So it needs to be dictated by config in some way or another. It's better for it to actually work by default than possibly not work because of a bad default.

[rekoil]

So detect the OS and choose the more secure default where possible? I know it's less elegant, but having a much more secure model is worth some sacrifices.

[francislavoie]

It's not only the OS, it's the environment. File permissions are not a guarantee, no matter the OS.

[rekoil]

Then you throw an error in the log, you have to leave something for the admin to do to set their system up correctly. It's better that Caddy fails to enable the admin endpoint than that it enables it in an insecure manner.

[francislavoie]

You're overestimating the users; a large % of them would not understand how to resolve that on their own and would complain to us that they can't start Caddy without errors. And I fundamentally disagree that the TCP socket is so insecure that it must never be used as a default, it's only insecure if your server is otherwise compromised. It's a sufficient default for 99.99% of users.

[rekoil]

Said large percentage of users will be installing through a package manager anyway, where you can make sure that Caddy has a path the user it runs as can write to.

If you're correct that I'm overestimating users then what are you guys doing? You're expecting users to know how to secure their Caddy configuration when in reality most users probably have no idea that this API even exists, they'll put their config in Caddyfile, start the server, and be done with it.

We should be expecting that they don't know anything about the risks involved with leaving an unauthenticated HTTP API on localhost, and instead shipping a default that doesn't place their system and network at unnecessary risk.