Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > web server software

Reply
Thread Tools

web server software

 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2006
Steve wrote:
<snip>
> > Once you go beyond kernel space, the vulnerabilities have nothing to do
> > with the OS. So why is it that you wouldn't open up port 80 to XP, yet
> > you'd do so willingly to a Linux box?

> You mean an os that can be compromised by looking at an image, using an
> alleged design feature(http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-022.htm)? What's the


Comprimised? Don't run as admin, don't browse untrusted sites, don't
use a browser from a webserver. All "common" sense.

An alleged design feature? What are you suggesting?

It would appear that WINE has an independent implementation of the same
vulnerability, so whoever ordered the backdoor must be very influential
(!)

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?s...d&cid=14481295

> difference between an OS designed for multiuser access from the outset,
> and a desktop with security bolted on as an afterthought. Badly. From a


Its really pointless having these types of arguments IMHO
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=147

> company that's having to release critical patches to not-yet-released
> software that's years late
> (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...1911406,00.asp
> )


You can't fix vulns until you know about them. This vuln is fixed in
recent Windows Vista and Longhorn Server builds, these patches are for
people using (typically testing in non-production networks) older
releases.

Cheers
Nathan

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
shannon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2006
Andrew wrote:
> -=rjh=- wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:03:31 +1300, Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking for something very simple to host a webpage from my machine
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions for free software
>>>>>
>>>>> The machine is a Winxp pro system
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't start from here. The potential security problems in opening
>>>> port 80 to an XP machine don't bear thinking about.
>>>>
>>>> Go and get yourself an old P3 server and run linux on it. It won't cost
>>>> much at all. I use an 800 MHz P3. Since there's a fair chance that
>>>> you'll
>>>> be hosting over adsl, then server performance will be the last of your
>>>> worries.
>>>>
>>>> $0.02,
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It will cost more then nothing though....
>>>
>>> If i was willing to spend money i would just use any given hosting
>>> company, However i just want this to put a simple html page up so
>>> that i can quickly host an odd file or picture that i dont want to
>>> email to someone
>>>

>>
>> If that is all you want, why not either use your ISP's free hosting if
>> available, or one of the free services available online?
>>
>> Blogger/blogspot has to be one of the easiest ways to put together
>> reasonably complex but easily updated sites for free - you can even do
>> it by email; protopage is even easier but for simple pages. Checkout
>> hindesite.co.nz (mine) which redirects to a protopage at present.
>> Image hosting is free at flickr, and file hosting is available for
>> free at openomy.com, and soon will also be available at omnidrive.com
>>
>> Openomy and flickr are both quite interesting in that because your
>> content is available as RSS feeds, it is going to possible to imitate
>> the photocasting functionality of iPhoto as demonstrated at the
>> MacWorld last week.
>>
>> For temporary images, why not use tinypic? There are similar services
>> for files.
>>
>> There is *so* much free stuff available, and excellent tools to go
>> with them - RSS available pretty much everywhere, these days.
>>
>> I've run webservers in the past, and it really isn't worth the hassle
>> - the free services are just so good. Spend your time putting your
>> content online, let others run the server.

>
> That could work, I did think about it, But i figured rather then have to
> upload everything it would be easier just to copy it into the right
> place on my pc
> Purely if its a i want it now type thing i would have up upload it, Wait
> till that finishes, THen it would have to be downloaded again. From my
> pc its just copy it to the right place, then someone can download it
>
> But thanks for your suggestion
>
> Im not interested really in making a nice website, its just personal
> file sharing on the fly
>


You could use Soulseek if thats the sort of facility you want, its easy
to restrict your share to one user

http://www.slsknet.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulseek

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
robert.p.king@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2006
I've been using IIS since about '96 and the only time I've had a
compromised system was some dickhead configured the firewall
incorrectly.

 
Reply With Quote
 
robert.p.king@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2006
Yeah slap IIS on there, turn on your firewall and allow port 80 in.
For filesharing just point the root of your IIS site (which XP only has
one of) to the file directory you want to share and enable directory
browsing. You should probably turn off anonymous authentication so
that casual browsers won't have a clear shot at it. Also sign up for
DynDNS and get a hostname for your machine so you don't need to update
your mates with your IP address all the time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)d says...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:11:36 +1300, XPD wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >>>>I wouldn't start from here. The potential security problems in opening
> >>>>port 80 to an XP machine don't bear thinking about.
> >>>
> >>> Such as?
> >> Before then, nobody could directly access this machine. Now they can.

> >
> > Ive run web servers on and off for a few years now and NEVER had any
> > issues - all have run on the standard port 80.
> > If it was an issue, then the internet would be a pretty boring place with
> > people changing their http ports and noone knowing what they are :-p

>
> ...and you call me naive? I've run internet servers for a living
> constantly since 1997, and have never ( and know of nobody in their right
> mind who has ) used M$ products as hosts. And there really is a reason for
> that. SECURITY.


???
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html

Quote:
Windows servers also outpaced Apache in active sites for the third
straight month, during which it has lifted its market share in active
sites by 4.1 percent to 24.4 percent

Sounds like the market - and you - disagree.

--
Duncan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Robinson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2006
Dave Doe wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed)d says...
>>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:11:36 +1300, XPD wrote:
>>>"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>>>>I wouldn't start from here. The potential security problems in opening
>>>>>>port 80 to an XP machine don't bear thinking about.
>>>>>Such as?
>>>>Before then, nobody could directly access this machine. Now they can.
>>>Ive run web servers on and off for a few years now and NEVER had any
>>>issues - all have run on the standard port 80.
>>>If it was an issue, then the internet would be a pretty boring place with
>>>people changing their http ports and noone knowing what they are :-p

>>...and you call me naive? I've run internet servers for a living
>>constantly since 1997, and have never ( and know of nobody in their right
>>mind who has ) used M$ products as hosts. And there really is a reason for
>>that. SECURITY.

> ???
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html
> Quote:
> Windows servers also outpaced Apache in active sites for the third
> straight month, during which it has lifted its market share in active
> sites by 4.1 percent to 24.4 percent
> Sounds like the market - and you - disagree.


Heh - you conveniently failed to notice that apache accounts for 70% of all
sites and 66% of active servers. Also the start of the article where it
explains part of the reason for the change being a reconfiguration at one
provider. It also appears from the graphs that the slight slowing in apache's
rate of growth (to roughly match M$'s) in the recent past is a loss to software
other than IIS. Your attempt to pass this off as IIS leading the market is a
fine piece of humour.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)2tod.net>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)2tod.net says...
> Dave Doe wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > (E-Mail Removed)d says...
> >>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:11:36 +1300, XPD wrote:
> >>>"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>>news(E-Mail Removed). ..
> >>>>>>I wouldn't start from here. The potential security problems in opening
> >>>>>>port 80 to an XP machine don't bear thinking about.
> >>>>>Such as?
> >>>>Before then, nobody could directly access this machine. Now they can.
> >>>Ive run web servers on and off for a few years now and NEVER had any
> >>>issues - all have run on the standard port 80.
> >>>If it was an issue, then the internet would be a pretty boring place with
> >>>people changing their http ports and noone knowing what they are :-p
> >>...and you call me naive? I've run internet servers for a living
> >>constantly since 1997, and have never ( and know of nobody in their right
> >>mind who has ) used M$ products as hosts. And there really is a reason for
> >>that. SECURITY.

> > ???
> > http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html
> > Quote:
> > Windows servers also outpaced Apache in active sites for the third
> > straight month, during which it has lifted its market share in active
> > sites by 4.1 percent to 24.4 percent
> > Sounds like the market - and you - disagree.

>
> Heh - you conveniently failed to notice that apache accounts for 70% of all
> sites and 66% of active servers. Also the start of the article where it
> explains part of the reason for the change being a reconfiguration at one
> provider. It also appears from the graphs that the slight slowing in apache's
> rate of growth (to roughly match M$'s) in the recent past is a loss to software
> other than IIS. Your attempt to pass this off as IIS leading the market is a
> fine piece of humour.


Not at all! - Apache had the market (there was no IIS back then). Since
then, IIS came along and killed all Apache's competitors off and put a
big dent in Apache!

(Please do tell me where I said IIS is "leading the market".)

Looking at the graphs overall - IIS has continued to push into Apache's
share.

--
Duncan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bret
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2006
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:21:28 +1300, Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)2tod.net>,
>(E-Mail Removed)2tod.net says...
>> Dave Doe wrote:
>> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> > (E-Mail Removed)d says...
>> >>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:11:36 +1300, XPD wrote:
>> >>>"Steve" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >>>news(E-Mail Removed). ..
>> >>>>>>I wouldn't start from here. The potential security problems in opening
>> >>>>>>port 80 to an XP machine don't bear thinking about.
>> >>>>>Such as?
>> >>>>Before then, nobody could directly access this machine. Now they can.
>> >>>Ive run web servers on and off for a few years now and NEVER had any
>> >>>issues - all have run on the standard port 80.
>> >>>If it was an issue, then the internet would be a pretty boring place with
>> >>>people changing their http ports and noone knowing what they are :-p
>> >>...and you call me naive? I've run internet servers for a living
>> >>constantly since 1997, and have never ( and know of nobody in their right
>> >>mind who has ) used M$ products as hosts. And there really is a reason for
>> >>that. SECURITY.
>> > ???
>> > http://news.netcraft.com/archives/we...er_survey.html
>> > Quote:
>> > Windows servers also outpaced Apache in active sites for the third
>> > straight month, during which it has lifted its market share in active
>> > sites by 4.1 percent to 24.4 percent
>> > Sounds like the market - and you - disagree.

>>
>> Heh - you conveniently failed to notice that apache accounts for 70% of all
>> sites and 66% of active servers. Also the start of the article where it
>> explains part of the reason for the change being a reconfiguration at one
>> provider. It also appears from the graphs that the slight slowing in apache's
>> rate of growth (to roughly match M$'s) in the recent past is a loss to software
>> other than IIS. Your attempt to pass this off as IIS leading the market is a
>> fine piece of humour.

>
>Not at all! - Apache had the market (there was no IIS back then). Since
>then, IIS came along and killed all Apache's competitors off and put a
>big dent in Apache!


LOL

>(Please do tell me where I said IIS is "leading the market".)
>
>Looking at the graphs overall - IIS has continued to push into Apache's
>share.


We all look foward to an Apache free future, perhaps 2110

 
Reply With Quote
 
The Other Guy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2006
Bret wrote:
> We all look foward to an Apache free future, perhaps 2110


Apache is certainly good at what it does, but it isn't the best Web
server for every situation. I've switched from Apache to LightTPD
myself. I don't need all that Apache offers, and I think smaller
alternatives will start to gain more support as Apache continues to
cater to the needs of everyone.

The Other Guy
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bret
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2006
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:17:11 +1300, The Other Guy <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Bret wrote:
>> We all look foward to an Apache free future, perhaps 2110

>
>Apache is certainly good at what it does, but it isn't the best Web
>server for every situation. I've switched from Apache to LightTPD
>myself. I don't need all that Apache offers, and I think smaller
>alternatives will start to gain more support as Apache continues to
>cater to the needs of everyone.


Agreed.

>The Other Guy


Apache must die
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SMS gateway software, SMS gateway, SMS software, SMS server, SMPP software, WAP Push John UK VOIP 0 08-29-2007 05:14 AM
SMS gateway software, SMS gateway, SMS software, SMS server, SMPP software, WAP Push John ASP .Net 0 08-29-2007 05:08 AM
SMS gateway software, SMS gateway, SMS software, SMS server, SMPP software, WAP Push John Java 0 08-28-2007 05:53 AM
automatically update web client software from web server Lauray Lee ASP .Net Web Services 0 10-01-2004 04:50 PM



Advertisments