[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.

[francislavoie]

> Said large percentage of users will be installing through a package manager anyway

Exactly, which is why the environment variable approach is perfectly fine. The env var will be set in the systemd config.

> You're expecting users to know how to secure their systems

Again, our view is that the TCP socket for admin is secure enough for 99.99% of users, and has been for over 3 years since Caddy v2 was released. We've still not seen any evidence of a practical exploit in the wild.