Re: khttpd
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
10 Jun 1999 14:03:56 GMT
Followup to: <19990610132916.21924.qmail@convergence.de>
By author: felix@convergence.de
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> In local.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> > Why not give khttpd a devoted port? Why go to all these pains to dissect
> > keep-alive connections and all that, when we can do <IMG
> > SRC="http://my.server.net:81/banner.gif">? Is that just too easy for
> > everyone? Is it because the benchmarks we were talking about would be able
> > to use something like that?
>
> Recent squid versions disallow port 81 through the proxy, so people will
> see broken images.
>
What about the ports 8000 and 8080, both of which are frequently used
for http? (If Squid blocks them all, I would consider that a bug in
Squid.)
-hpa
--
"The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue
Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with
and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions."
-- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/