Serious Apache Exploit Discovered 160
bennyboy64 writes "An IT security company has discovered a serious exploit in Apache's HTTP web server, which could allow a remote attacker to gain complete control of a database. ZDNet reports the vulnerability exists in Apache's core mod_isapi module. By exploiting the module, an attacker could remotely gain system privileges that would compromise data security. Users of Apache 2.2.14 and earlier are advised to upgrade to Apache 2.2.15, which fixes the exploit."
Note: according to the advisory, this exploit is exclusive to Windows.
Windows? (Score:2, Insightful)
What percentage of Apache hosts run on Windows? I'd guess maybe 10%, a generous estimate. This isn't something that's going to bring the entire web down. Also, wouldn't you have to enable mod_isapi manually?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your guess would be wrong. Apache is the core webserver for lots of application servers; i.e. you're getting Apache every time you install Oracle IAS or WebSphere. Dunno about WebLogic but I'd guess that applies as well. Your 10% goes up, way up.
--#
Re: (Score:2)
And don't hold your breath waiting for a patch from Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
And who in his right mind would run those on Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
Any company that's a Microsoft shop, which includes a really large number of Fortune 500 companies. That's why Oracle and IBM offer those products on Windows.
Windows only (Score:5, Informative)
This would have been useful in the summary. From the linked page:
While I'm sure it will impact many people, I'd still imagine the majority of Apache users are running it on a platform other than Windows
Re: (Score:1)
mod_isapi is a core module of the Apache package that implements the Internet Server extension API. The extension allows Apache to serve Internet Server extensions (ISAPI .dll modules) for Microsoft Windows
based hosts.
So are you only vulnerable if you use ISAPI ? It does look like that module is enabled by default though. I wonder why ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So are you only vulnerable if you use ISAPI ? It does look like that module is enabled by default though. I wonder why ?
Actually, according to the advisory, it seems you are only vulnerable if you actually load an ISAPI .dll module.
"it is possible to trigger a vulnerability in Apache mod_isapi that will unload the target ISAPI module from memory. However function pointers still remain in memory"
Even so, it's probably a good idea to comment out mod_isapi if you're not actively using it.
Why is mod_isapi enabled by default? (Score:1)
Good point! I had just assumed it was required to run php/mysql, but seems that it is only needed if you're going to run ISAPI extensions intended for IIS. I just disabled it on my WAMP servers with no side effects.
There seems to be very little need for this extension - it should be disabled by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone else think it ironic that the most severe security error found in Apache for quite a while now is in an IIS compatibility module?
Windows only exploit (Score:1, Insightful)
Only affects Windows, though.
I wonder how many big deployments of Apache+Windows are out there.
I was slightly worried, until I read this: (Score:2, Interesting)
Platform. Microsoft Windows
But is this the final nail in the Apache 1.3 coffin?
Now the boss is going to be upset even when you tell them your version is not vulnerable.
It's unanimous! (Score:5, Funny)
7 out of the first 8 posts agree that this is Windows only.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's unanimous! (Score:5, Funny)
7 out of the first 8 posts agree that this is Windows only.
You must be using Windows Calculator!
Re: (Score:2)
Or Excel [slashdot.org]
Update to 2.2.15 (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Awful summary (Score:1)
Not Apache's problem (Score:2, Informative)
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_isapi.html
ISAPI extension modules (.dll files) are written by third parties. The Apache Group does not author these modules, so we provide no support for them. Please contact the ISAPI's author directly if you are experiencing problems running their ISAPI extension. Please do not post such problems to Apache's lists or bug reporting pages.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe that refers to 3rd-party ISAPI modules, not mod-isapi itself. Presumeably, Apache *is* responsible for maintaining mod-isapi.
Re:Not Apache's problem (Score:5, Informative)
The extension module DLL's are third party.
The core isapi apache module is all apache, and that's where the bug is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem isn't in the dlls per se, the exploit works by causing mod_isapi to unload a dll and leave dangling pointers to the api that can be invoked. The fix is an apache.org change to mod_isapi that prevents such unloading:
2.2.15 Release Notes [apache.org]
Changes with Apache 2.2.15
*) SECURITY: CVE-2010-0425 (cve.mitre.org) mod_isapi: Do not unload an isapi .dll module until the request
processing is completed, avoiding orphaned callback pointers.
[Brett Gervasoni brettg senseofsecurity.com, Jeff Trawick]
You bastards gave me a heart attack! (Score:5, Funny)
Amen Brother! (Score:2)
Can we add a feature to
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read the article to see it was Windows only . . . whew.
I may be a little out of date, but I thought isapi was the IIS interface, meaning it was inherently Windows only. And isapi was mentioned as part of the summary.
OTOH, at least it means you actually RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been so long since I have used Windows for a server. I can see my last Windows server, a whopping 300 MHz killing machine, sitting at the bottom of a shelf in my office, waiting for the day I finally blank the hard drive and send it off to the Solid Waste Authority.
There was that inkling in the back of my head, but I had to read on for it to move forward in my brain.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been so long since I have used Windows for a server. I can see my last Windows server, a whopping 300 MHz killing machine, sitting at the bottom of a shelf in my office, waiting for the day I finally blank the hard drive and send it off to the Solid Waste Authority.
There was that inkling in the back of my head, but I had to read on for it to move forward in my brain.
Do yourself a favor and try to forget, again. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read the article to see it was Windows only . . . whew.
No you didn't. Even before the update, the summary clearly said it was mod_isapi that contains the bug, and mod_isapi is a Windows-only component.
Apache on Windows--More common than you think? (Score:2, Informative)
There are many reasons why I wouldn't deploy a production (i.e. www-facing) webserver of any stripe running on Microsoft Windows, security being a big one of them.[1]
On the other hand, for some purposes (corporate intranet, for example), Apache on Windows has been a godsend--it's allowed us, for example, to migrate our internal apps to a Free platform gradually, while depreciating our existing Windows machines (and advocates) into oblivion.
---------------
1. Lots of people do, though. I'm pretty sure IBM a
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you really meant you have a team of people chipping away at the Windows machines (and advocates) with hammers to accelerate their loss of monetary value?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you really meant you have a team of people chipping away at the Windows machines (and advocates) with hammers to accelerate their loss of monetary value?
How would that decrease their value?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
WebSphere uses its own HTTP stack.
The IBM HTTP Server included with Websphere is based off of Apache. However, the mod_isapi module is disabled by default in IBM HTTP server installations. Websphere 6.1 uses an Apache 2.0.x based HTTP server, but Websphere 7.0 uses an Apache 2.2.x based HTTP server which could be vulnerable if you specifically enable this module.
Always worried about reporting. (Score:3, Interesting)
At a place I used to work, one of my coworkers reported a simple potential security problem: the username for the admin account on all our machines is the same as the computer's name. This just eliminates one less thing for a hacker to figure out. He was accused of "snooping", whatever that means, and almost lost his job. The only thing that saved him is a higher-up with a brain.
Whenever I hear a story about a person\firm reporting security risks, I am reminded of the story of my coworker, and I have heard too many similiar stories. It has trained to me keep my mouth shut about these problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I hear a story about a person\firm reporting security risks, I am reminded of the story of my coworker, and I have heard too many similiar stories. It has trained to me keep my mouth shut about these problems.
That's really bad. I know it's all too easy to tell someone to change job but that company is dysfunctional and You will do better elsewhere.
Re:Always worried about reporting. (Score:4, Informative)
That would be a problem, if Windows didn't have a hidden admin account that is always named the same. I propose to you the following formula will work on 80% of Windows XP systems: ...
1. If Welcome-screen in use, hit Ctrl-Alt-Del twice
2. Username "Administrator", empty password
3. Hit OK and use computer with admin privs
4.
5. Profit!!
On a home system maybe, but in corporate, sysadmins nuke the "mandatory user account" in favor of Administrator first thing, then they rename administrator to something else, either via GPO or locally (usually both). Some places like to disable the account while it's in AD too.
FYI, in Vista and Win7, I think you have to boot to safe mode for your trick to work since Administrator is usually disabled by default, but reenabled for safe mode.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It aint hidden. ...
2. There's a page in setup asking for the admin password. Don't blame Microsoft if the idiot user just clicked "Next".
3.
4. Dumbass.
Gain Complete Control (Score:5, Funny)
I would really like to make a shirt that says: "This T-shirt has a serious exploit that allows a remote attacker to gain complete control."
It should be printed around the bottom hem for maximum effect.
Could also work on tighty whiteys.
I said I'd like to make it, not wear it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
This would work best on assless chaps.
ISAPI = Lipstick on Ferrari (Score:2, Informative)
Play on words here... Maybe its Lipstick on a pigs platform, as IIS SUCKS balls.
ISAPI == worthless in the context of using it for Apache. Most of its 'features' are well implemented in Apache with no need for ISAPI unless you're running very specialized apps that make extensive use of ISAPI.
Changing request data (URLs or headers) sent by the client # mod_rewrite
Controlling which physical file gets mapped to the URL # mod_rewrite
Controlling the user name and password used with anonymous or basic authent
Re:ISAPI = ease of conversion (Score:2)
Makes it easier to migrate from IIS to Apache. Install Apache and let it use your current ISAPI modules, so your website basically works the same. Then gradually turn off each ISAPI module as you configure it the Apache way.
There are piles of ISAPI filters in use, and it's unlikely that someone going through a conversion is going to dump all of the ISAPI they paid for immediately. Or rewrite what they implemented in-house. This reduces the amount of testing and debugging that has to be done up-front, an
But do you really need mod_isapi (Score:1)
Not that I'd discourage anyone from keeping their Apache up-to-date, but I decided to see what would happen if I prevented the Windows Apache on my machine from loading mod_isapi. The answer? Nothing, apparently. The only thing I really feared was that it might interfere with the Zend debugger, but no, it's fine.
Thanks, jackass. (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks, jackass. Just what I wanted on a Monday morning: to update a half dozen Internet-facing source-based systems. Of course, it was a false alarm: submitter was too much of a toolbag to mention it was Windows-only.
(And, it being a Monday morning, I didn't initially notice the mention of mod_isapi. Of course.)
In any apps? (Score:2)
Module enabled by default (Score:3, Informative)
If you cant upgrade, simply go into \conf\apache.conf and comment out the line that loads aspi:
#LoadModule isapi_module modules/mod_isapi.so
restart apache service and you should be good to go.
And to all those people who are like 'lolz! who runs apache on windows lolz!', i would say plenty of people. Because apache is far far far far far superior to ISS. Hopefully they have done it like me and made a low privilege local user to run it. It takes a bit more work but not much.
Its windows (Score:1, Troll)
They only have a "sense of security" anyways.
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:5, Insightful)
> The same bug in a module that ran on Linux would result in a remote root exploit.
Really?
ps -aef | grep apach
root 3029 1 0 08:10 ? 00:00:00 /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
www-data 3072 3029 0 08:10 ? 00:00:00
www-data 3073 3029 0 08:10 ? 00:00:00
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
You can do the same sort of thing in windows. THAT the *DEFAULT* install of Apache is a admin user...
You can set who the launching user is of any service to be that of a lower user. *NOW* is the application capable of running like that? In this case probably. Many are not.
You can really really really really slice and dice how applications run on windows. In many ways it is better than the unix world. The downside is it is super super super complex. So no one uses it and just maxes out everything. In
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apache has to run as root at some point or else it can't bind to port 80. What you see from ps is after apache had setuid and forked. You can do the same thing in windows, but don't you agree it falls upon apache to do spawn processes as an unprivileged user? If you remember back in Apache 1 days, it was the same way in Linux, you had to run as root or load it as a plugin for inetd if you wanted to run it on port 80. I remember back in the days when we were using ipfwadm to forward all packets with server p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can still have undesirable security issues on dedicate web hosting servers, for three reasons. One: a remote root exploit allows the intruder to replace all of the data on your site with whatever malware/adware they feel like, or even post content to slander you. Two: they can still turn your web server into a spambot, something which is undesirable (or use it as a starting point for whatever other malicious attacks they feel like.)
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if "its just as bad". It isn't a "root exploit". It's highly inaccurate to call it one.
Muddling terms is how you end up with nonsense like not being able to tell programs from data.
Distinctions are important for just this reason.
Yes it still sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
A root exploit means that the attacker has complete control over the machine. It doesn't matter how important the system is or what they do with it. I just wanted to point out that an attacker who gets root over a dedicated webserver can still do undesirable things with it (in contrast to my parent poster who said that having root over a dedicated web server is no big deal). I'm not blurring distinctions
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Muddling terms is how you end up with nonsense like not being able to tell programs from data.
But windows admins can't tell data from programs. They put both under c:\program files
Re: (Score:2)
Idiotic programmers put data inside of Program Files.
Admins put data in AppData, a directory in the application user's home/profile folder, where it belongs.
Re: (Score:2)
So, while you're busy determining the relevance of an IT shop, I'll be busy making sure that, at the very least, I can expect the same things of a third party application that Microsoft tells me I should. And when that doesn't happen, the ensuing "WTF" is well placed, at the very least.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whoosh. The output in the posting to which you replied was demonstrating that it's not a root exploit, it's an exploit of the account 'www-data'.
On web servers I run, all executable code (apache, log rotator, etc.) is on a partition mounted readonly and nosuid. Data is on a partition mounted noexec. Nothing in the file system outside of /tmp is writable by www-data. So compromising that account gets you very little. You can't run code (except in the web server's scripting context, which doesn't get you any
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if they combine the exploit with a previously unknown local root vulnerability?
Many linux people seem to disregard local root vulnerabilities on machines that are single user (and they are the user) or internet servers where they are the only user that logs into them. They reason that since they don't give anyone else access to the machine, there is no reason to worry about them (i've seen lots of comments like this in the past when local root exploits are discovered).
If an exploit can give so
Re: (Score:2)
Tricking a process into running your code by manipulating the stack or similar shenanigans doesn't get you privileges beyond those the process already had (leaving aside a kernel bug).
There is nothing running suid and nothing running as root once Apache drops privileges, which happens before it forks its user-facing children.
And remember, in this setup the only code you will run is code you manage to inject live into a running process. You cannot run executables from disk except those that were already
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. How do you execute apache if it's on a readonly and noexec partition? How about tools your server may need to exec?
You should be able to run anything in /bin.
Plus, your "leaving aside a kernel bug" seems odd, since there have been a number of such kernel bugs. The most recent was just a few days ago.
http://www.debian.com/security/2010/dsa-2005 [debian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As I said above, binaries are in the readonly partition and everything else is in the noexec partition.
Good thing we run FreeBSD.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if they combine the exploit with a previously unknown local root vulnerability?
Why would they do that, when they could just use a previously unknown remote root vulnerability? Then they wouldn't have to jump through the additionaly hoop of the remote non-root vulnerability.
Many linux people seem to disregard local root vulnerabilities on machines that are single user
[citation needed]
You seem to have gone from an imaginary "unknown local root vulnerability" to unnamed "known local root vulnerabilities" without any indication of how you move from one to the other.. (this is beside the fact that you made the grand assertion that "many" linux people ignore them, without any backin
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, the typical "I don't like what he's saying, so i'll nitpick his argument apart then I can pretend it's not true" attack.
I was making two different points, not building upon them. But to satisfy your nit picking, I should have said "In addition" between the two points.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dedicated webservers are actually far more attractive targets to attackers, they are likely to have a lot more upstream bandwidth available to them than a typical end user making them ideal for spam, ddos, and scanning for other machines to infect, or they could merely reuse the existing webserver as a delivery mechanism for malware or phishing sites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
99% huh? Bullshit.
I would be skeptical of any claim that even a "majority" of such websites were based on Windows. For a hosting provider, the extra hardware cost AND still lower performance of Windows just isn't worth it. Toss in higher licensing fees and a "pray to the black box" method of support, and you have yourself a losing business.
Now it's true that a SLIGHT majority of *parked/empty domains* might resolve to Windows webservers. I think that's what you meant, but spinning it the way you have done i
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misread the post. They're not saying that 99% of web sites are on Windows webservers, they're saying that 99% of websites are on webservers. Full stop. Rather than home machines, or dual purposed boxes.
Of course, with that cleared up, I'm still not sure what their point is. If a webserver's running Windows, and their copy of Apache gets hit with this exploit, it's still gonna fuck some shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I misread this. My line reading mind wandered up to the "WINDOWS" in the subject of that post.
Sorry for being an ass.
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:4, Informative)
Apache on linux (at least in all the setups i've seen) starts as root so it can bind port 80 but then switches down to a lower privilage user to do the actual serving. Some damage could still be done of course but hopefully it's limited compared to the damage root can do.
Apache on windows defaults to running as "localsystem" (roughly the windows equivilent of root)
You can run it as another user but apparently ( http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/platform/windows.html [apache.org] ) that user has to have "Act as part of the operating system" privilages. MS describes said privilages as "This user right allows a process to impersonate any user without authentication. The process can therefore gain access to the same local resources as that user.".
So it seems either way to run Apache on windows you have to give it what ammounts to root privilages.
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:4, Informative)
MS bashing isn't really appropriate here.
You must either be new here or have a very short memory.
The same bug in a module that ran on Linux would result in a remote root exploit.
Apache does not normally run as root on Linux. Only on Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would Apache run as an Administrator on Windows? Even IIS doesn't do that these days.
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:4, Insightful)
Apache does not run as Administrator on Windows. I'm afraid it is worse than that, it runs as LocalSystem, which is more analogous to root than Administrator is. Even if you configure the service to run as a different account, it requires the "Log on as a service" and "Act as part of the operating system" privileges. Might as well use LocalSystem.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, it is that bad [apache.org].
The SYSTEM account has no privileges to the network, so shared pages or a shared installation of Apache is invisible to the service. If you intend to use any network resources, the following steps should help:
Now, as far as I understand, the main IIS service runs as Local System. But, for IIS 6+, worker processes run as the user logged into the website (or a set anonymous user, if not authenticated). This seems like it could still harbor some privilege escalation exploits, but seems more secure than Apache on Windows. I guess my point is, if you run Apache for a production server, make sure it is *nix and that it is not running as root.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same bug in a module that ran on Linux would result in a remote root exploit.
It would not. By default apache runs as root to bind port 80 and/or 443, then it changes to an unprivileged user.
Why on earth anyone would want to run apache on windows is beyond me but it seems people do.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an interesting note at security focus http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1765 [securityfocus.com] about how IIS is implemented securely by requiring kernel dll's to perform the heavy lifting. Kernel dll's, from what I understand, setup a shared state [ie. lump of memory ] between the application and the kernel for the given API.
After the foreplay is over, the application's privilege is lowered, however it still has that lump of shared memory that the kernel will rely on. It seems from the parent article about th
Fault (Score:2)
.. but the vulnerability is entirely Apache's fault...
Probably not, actually. From the documentation: [apache.org]
Summary
This module implements the Internet Server extension API. It allows Internet Server extensions (e.g. ISAPI .dll modules) to be served by Apache for Windows, subject to the noted restrictions.
ISAPI extension modules (.dll files) are written by third parties. The Apache Group does not author these modules, so we provide no support for them. Please contact the ISAPI's author directly if you are experiencing problems running their ISAPI extension. Please do not post such problems to Apache's lists or bug reporting pages.
Emphasis theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Discussing exploits isn't "bashing".
However, in regards to MS (and we're close to being offtopic here) when was the last time you heard about an Apache vuln? Apache is relatively solid.
My problems with MS, however, are philosophical. MS seems to revel in giving the finger to standards, from the backslash to everything else. They brag about useability testing, but it almost seems like they take a group of children and mentally handicapped adults and flipping the bird to everyone else. E.g., I bought a netboo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a netbook last week and tried to get on the internet with it at my favorite bar; the bar's router had something wrong with it and Windows couldn't find the DNS server. There seemed to be no way to tell Windows networking what the server address was. Meanwhile, a woman with an iPhone had no trouble using the wifi there. With earlier versions of Windows I had no trouble specifying a DNS server, and the help system is no help at all.
I'm more familiar with XP (which I know you can easily specify DNS with). Was this a Windows 7 Reduced Functionality for Netbooks (TM) version? I've noticed annoying things like that on my parents' computers. The worst is that "Users and Groups" is gone in the Computer Management MMC, so those tasks have to be done via command line. Windows 7 Enterprise is better than XP (wow, remote _and_ local IP settings and outgoing/incoming rules for Firewall? finally.), but the "home" versions are crippled in ways
Re: (Score:2)
Was this a Windows 7 Reduced Functionality for Netbooks (TM) version?
Yes, and I have to wonder WTF Microsoft was thinking when they developed this. If they think I'll "upgrade" to a $200 OS to run a $200 computer they have rocks in their heads. As it is, they have me thinking "Windows 7 is the shittiest OS I ever used." (As an aside to the mods, go ahead and mod me down here, too, just like you modded my GP comment. If an honest and polite opinion is "flamebait" you must have a dog in the fight, and not hav
Re:Note: Apache ON WINDOWS (Score:4, Informative)
However, in regards to MS (and we're close to being offtopic here) when was the last time you heard about an Apache vuln? Apache is relatively solid
Both Apache and IIS are pretty secure, although I have no idea why you would run Apache on a Windows server.
My problems with MS, however, are philosophical. MS seems to revel in giving the finger to standards, from the backslash to everything else.
Oh dear, you didn't just claim that the forward slash was a standard, did you? MS-DOS 1 used the same conventions as CP/M and VMS for command line arguments: forward slash. When DOS 2.0 added directories, but they had to use backslash to prevent backwards compatibility problems. They couldn't use the Apple Mac's colon separator because they already used that for drive letters, and nobody wanted to be anything like VMS's square brackets []. (See, there really was no standard)
However, they did actually implement the paths using both / and \. You could change an environment variable to set the argument prefix. Then you could happily use "cd /DOS". Even today, both symbols work. You can try:
notepad c:\autoexec.bat
notepad c:/autoexec.bat
The only time where / doesn't work is when it may be interpreted as a command line option. So "cd /Windows" doesn't work, but "cd ./Windows" does work. The point is that there was no standard for directory separators because every operating system did things their own way. And even if they did differ, there was a valid reason to do so. It was not just "giving the finger to standards". There are examples of them not using standards, like the Outlook-Exchange interface (although they probably would have had to extend the interface to get it to work using the standards so there may have been no point).
As for your DNS story, of course Windows can set the DNS manually. Don't ask me to tell you where you set it, because they keep moving around the network configuration with every version of Windows. That really pisses me off. Every upgrade of Windows since Windows for Workgroups 3.11 has made networking harder. I don't know why they have to keep fiddling!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
although I have no idea why you would run Apache on a Windows server.
Because sometimes you're forced to use a Windows server platform yet at the same time are under budget constraints and can't afford Microsoft's licensing models.
Re: (Score:2)
How would using Apache help? The last time I checked, the Windows Server licensing model required one license per client, regardless of what software you use on the server.
Re: (Score:2)
although I have no idea why you would run Apache on a Windows server.
Because you need to run something that requires Tomcat, and all you have is Windows servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Tomcat runs fine under IIS. We do it here all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear, you didn't just claim that the forward slash was a standard, did you? MS-DOS 1 used the same conventions as CP/M and VMS for command line arguments
I didn't say they were the first to not follow standards; UNIX was developed in 1969 [wikipedia.org]. CP/M didn't follow the standard before Windows didn't follow the standard, and so did VMS [wikipedia.org]. I did read once that one of the fellows who worked on PC-DOS felt that using the forward slash as a switch was a bad idea, and his bad idea at that. IINM it was DOS 2.something th
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they were the first to not follow standards; UNIX was developed in 1969 [wikipedia.org].
Are you really asserting that the first implementation of a given feature automatically defines a standard?
For that matter, was UNIX the first OS to have subdirectories? It may have been, but do you actually know this to be the case or are you just guessing?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really asserting that the first implementation of a given feature automatically defines a standard?
No, but in many cases it should, and truthfully there weren't really very many standards back then; nearly everything was proprietary. Even later whan CP/M came around you couldn't install any CP/M on any machine like you can Linux today. But iinm the first darpanet machines ran UNIX, which should have defined the standard.
I can't be sure Unix was the first to have subdirectories, but it's the first I
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they were the first to not follow standards; UNIX was developed in 1969.
Why should Unix have been considered to be the standard? It was just another operating system in competition with the rest. It would have been incredibly arrogant for them at the time to tell the rest of the world that the Unix way was the only way things should be done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IIS, since version 6, has had fewer vulnerabilities than Apache has, however, neither have been particularly holey.
Are you seriously about the backslash? Microsoft actually WAS following the standard, the standard being CP/M.
As for your DNS problems, i've noticed on some firewalls, the IPv6 implementation seems to interfere with things on occasion. If you disable IPv6, things will work.
As for manually setting them, it works exactly the same way it always has.
Re: (Score:2)
I did find the settings to disable IPv6, and it was off by default (kudos to them for that). As to the backslash, it was VMS that didn't follow standard; UNIX used the slash in 1969, VMS came around six years later. I'm not sure when CP/M was frst written but I know it was later than 1969 (and probably copied the VMS model).
Re: (Score:2)
According to WIkipedia, CP/M was first written in 1973. There's no guarantee that Kildall had even seen a Unix system at that point, as it was internal to AT&T.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There never has been a standard file system path component separator.
I don't think "being first" is a very good argument for "is the standard" (not that Unix was necessarily the first operating system with a hierarchical directory structure). I would suggest that the most practical specifier of a de facto standard should be installed base. In that respect, the Windows backslash wins hands down.
Of course, the water is muddied by the fact that the URI path component separator is a normal slash.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whose fault...? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know whose fault it is but the idea of running ISS plugins under Apache on Windows scares me. Whose fault is it when you run naked through the "hot" ward snogging the e-bola patients? It's ironic that you end up getting sick because the pretty nurse you kissed had mono, but ... good lord, people...
Here's the SSL-enabled 2.2.15 package (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently, there were regressions with the build.
Here's revision 2 of Apache 2.2.15 with OpenSSL [apache.org]. Preliminary reports indicate that it works like it should.