Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Upgrades Software Apache

Apache 2.0.48 Released 159

Posted by CowboyNeal from the hitting-the-streets dept.
Gruturo writes "Busy week for the Apache software foundation: After 1.3.29, version 2 gets an update as well with 2.0.48, which mainly fixes these two security vulnerabilities. As usual, using a mirror is recommended." The official announcement lists several changes as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache 2.0.48 Released More

Apache 2.0.48 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Apache security documentation (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01, 2003 @08:53PM (#7368748)

    http://www.cgisecurity.com/webservers/apache/ [cgisecurity.com]

  • RedHat Fedora coming out on Monday will have this? (Score:3, Informative)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @08:56PM (#7368765) Homepage
    Generally RedHat will not put in new packages at the last minute. But this is a security fix release only and also Fedora is considered more experimental than regular Redhat releases.

  • Time to upgrade my Apple ][ server. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01, 2003 @09:01PM (#7368787)
    It will take all November to compile it :( [slashdot.org]

  • Hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by damiam ( 409504 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @09:05PM (#7368807)
    An Apache point release on the front page? Can you say "slow news day"?

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

      by spektr ( 466069 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @09:17PM (#7368878)
      An Apache point release on the front page? Can you say "slow news day"?

      It annoys me that I have to download the full dupe at every point release. Can't they post incremental patches for the article and the replies?
    • Can you say "slow news day"?

      I have a speech impediment, you insensitive clod!

      • Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Troll)

        by tenman ( 247215 )
        what happened to your JEs? I kinda miss catching up on your laptop, your school schedule, and life with the 'rents...

        Left hanging,
        TEN
    • slaw nows dee ...dammit, I guess I can't

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nr ( 27070 )
      Well its sunday after all. Dont you thinks its even more gnarley that the ninth Linux kernel pre-release (-pre9) made the frontpage, its not even dot release! :) I thinks its good that important open-source software get their spot in the sun, becouse many of us do not follow all projects closely and its nice to have interesting discussions about the software and the project.

  • OMG YES YES YES! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01, 2003 @09:08PM (#7368820)
    2.0.48 is released!

    This is the defining moment of my life. I have been continually pressing the "refresh" button since the story about 2.0.47 being released. Now all my hard work has paid off.

    2.0.48 is released at last!

  • Logging bug (Score:5, Informative)

    by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @09:16PM (#7368869) Homepage
    I used Apache 2.0.47 for all of a day before I decided to never use the 2.0.x line again. Apparently when a partial transfer is requested, Apache 2.0.47 logs the full amount requested. Not what was actually transfered. I ended up showing over 10GB of transfer in a single day on a 256Kbit DSL line. Which if you do the math is only physically capable of about 2.5GB a day.

    I looked at my logs and determined that a couple AOL users were trying to get a rather large file

    aca9bd40.ipt.aol.com 655 6689 1004 310
    acc4e74f.ipt.aol.com 1014 5412 521 148
    ac8bd972.ipt.aol.com 140 1565 534 745

    Requests MB KB Bytes. All that transfer supposedly happened in about a day.

    I notified bug-track but apparently such a simple problem (which doesn't exist in the 1.3.x line) isn't worth addressing.

    After all, who actually uses the Apache 2.0.x logs to monitor transfer? Hopefully not any hosting companies because the customers are going to get royally screwed.

    Ben

    • Re:Logging bug (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Download the code and fix it yourself. Submit a patch back to Apache. Feel good knowing you both helped a project you use and fixed your own problem.
      • This continues my confusion as chronicled here [slashdot.org].

        Can we get past these comments about "fixing it yourself"? Or is this just the default customer service coming out these days?

        I do thank you for not Karma whoring by posting as AC.

    • Re:Logging bug (Score:5, Informative)

      by portnoy ( 16520 ) on Saturday November 01, 2003 @11:32PM (#7369340) Homepage
      Um, didn't someone provide a solution [apache.org] to your bug report? (i.e. use the more advanced log module).

      Seems to me that they do see this as a problem worth addressing; they already have a fix.

      • That fix should be standard. Obviously Apache knows about the problem but even when someone fixes it for them (so writting a fix myself as someone else suggested is a worthless pursuit to try to actually fix the problem) they continue to insist on ignoring the problem and linking by default to a known broken module that they refuse to fix. And on top of that, they fail to properly document the workaround.

        Most web-site owners are more interested in running their business than dicking around with source co

  • 10 bucks (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 )
    10 bucks says my university still doesn't upgrade it's servers from 2.0.40

  • Netcraft stats for Apache (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhny ( 97647 ) <`bh' `at' `usa.net'> on Saturday November 01, 2003 @09:31PM (#7368928) Homepage

    the new netcraft stats are posted [netcraft.com].

    apache just keeps stealing more market share-

    • I love that graph.

      At no point in history has Apache ever had less marketshare than Microsoft's webserver. :)

  • Apache 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ceswiedler ( 165311 ) * <chris@swiedler.org> on Saturday November 01, 2003 @10:15PM (#7369072)
    Are people using 2.0 much yet? I remember all of the blowup over how 2.0 didn't really add anything unless you wanted to run it on Windows, and it caused a lot of problems for modules like mod_perl. Is everyone still sticking with 1.3?

    • Re:Apache 2.0 (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      2.0 does have numerous features and enhancements over 1.3 but didn't offer significant performance advantages over 1.3 on Linux and most Unix platforms . And as far as "problems" go, 2.0 had a completely new module system so modules had to be redesigned for 2.0, not really a problem with the modules. Just taken awhile to redesign them. Most Linux distros have moved to 2.0 which is what people really have been waiting for.

    • Re:Apache 2.0 (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Apache2 runs quite well with mod_perl and just about everything else under win32.

      Check out http://www.devside.net

    • Re:Apache 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Spoke ( 6112 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @03:08AM (#7370018)
      IMO, the best reason to use Apache 2.0 is that with mod_deflate, you can now easily add content encoding compression to an entire website to save bandwidth. Previously with Apache 1.3, you could add in mod_gzip, but mod_gzip wouldn't compress SSL content without some very ugly config hacks including mod_proxy with a substantial performance benefit. 2.0 eliminates this issue.

      I've seen bandwith drop on websites drop from 20-80% depending on how much content is non-compressible (like graphics).

    • Re:Apache 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by haeger ( 85819 )
      Oh yes.
      mod_perl is a real showstopper for me. I'd love to upgrade to Apace2.x but I really need mod_perl to function properly and it isn't ready so I'm sticking with 1.3 for now.

      Does anyone know the status of mod_perl? Should I try to lessen my dependency on it? Is 2.0 worth the upgrade even if I have to rewrite my app?

      .haeger
      • I am using mod_perl 2 (really 1.99_10) in production without any problems. You do have to sort of keep up with the mod_perl mailing list, but it has performed without any problems for me so far.

    • I'm using it very happily - tbh I can't tell much difference between 2.x and 1.x, except that I can use mod-xslt [sourceforge.net] on 2.x

      --sffubs

    • Saving lots of memory: Just run in 'worker' mode, and have only one system wide Python Interpreter. Also makes sharing DB connections and so much easier since you can just keep lots of globals around.

      And that's on Solaris, where worker isn't default.

      Oh, and mod_deflate is nice too.
  • See this [slashdot.org].

    This version was released the same day as 1.3.29 earlier in the week, Wednesday, I believe. Perhaps future posters would consider combining this news into one post.
  • Why are there two branches of Apache? There's the 1.3 and 2.0 lines. I've heard that 1.3 is better than 2.0, so is 2.0 effectivelly a beta? Why are there still new releases of 1.3, why not concentrate on 2.0?

    • Re:1.3 branch (Score:3, Informative)

      by jjohnson ( 62583 )
      The 2.0 line offers new internals and a new module API that's supposedly a lot cleaner and better organized. The biggest internal change of which I'm aware is that Apache now does proper threading, instead of fork()ing--that's why the big improvement on Windows, which is natively threaded, while a smaller improvement on unices.

    • Re:1.3 branch (Score:4, Informative)

      by crisco ( 4669 ) on Sunday November 02, 2003 @12:53AM (#7369626) Homepage
      AFAIK New releases of 1.3 are bugfixes and security patches. 2.0 has been labeled production ready for over a year.

      The problem isn't Apache itself but the open source modules that help make Apache the most useful webserver out there. Widely used projects like mod_perl and mod_php have only recentlyy released versions of these that work properly with Apache 2 and even these are still labeled betas.

      Additionally, most competent sysadmins won't mess with what isn't broken, so their server farms running 1.3 are going to continue running 1.3 for a while yet.

      • As long as you stick with the pre-forked MPM of Apache2, you really shouldn't have any problems with add-on modules like mod_perl and mod_php. Problems only arise when using one of the threaded MPMs.

  • Better than ever before (Score:1, Informative)

    by a5cii ( 620929 )
    Apache 2.0.48 works extremely well on windows 2000 there are no problems such as hanging during shutdown for me anymore one qualm i have is that the configuration could be made a bit easier using a web based interface like the one which abyss web server from www.aprelium.com has i look forward to a long and happy life with apache MC

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close