Re: siege failing and so on

-                                                 [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sunday 12 October 2003 18:50, Dmitry P. Schegolev wrote:
> -                                                 [email protected]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <snip>
>
> > So, Dmitry, could you try to run it again with a higher file-max? (echo
> > 1000000 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max or something like that) and see if it
> > resolves anything.
>
> Yes, I will try it tomorrow.

:)

> 2. How do you think, what loss in perfomance we will get if we will pass
> all data from port 80 through multiplexer into httpd-unix socket? It will
> be about ~10% or more above?
> I think, that if we want a really secure web-server,  it's nesessary to
> filter all data from port 80. Keep-alive is an example.
> a)
> Keep-alive on
>
> Even if we assume, that keep-alive in clients can be to only one vhost
> accoding to some standart, nothing prevent hacker to make his own
> "inplementation" of keep-alive. It will be a hole.

Not if we plug the hole with an error message.

> b) If we forbid keep-alive at all, we will lose current apache
> functionality. And I think, that even in this case(keep-alive off) we can
> construct some schema to break security, because connection socket passes
> to vhost-httpd process and it close connection. So user can potentially
> manipulate with connection socket.

I've been thinking about this for a while, on a production webserver, can we 
not stop people from attaching stuff to processes in the OS? This is the main 
reason why we won't let "children" send the requests to other children right? 
(Solving the Keep-alive stuff).
-- 
--
Asbjorn Sannes
[email protected]
www.sannes.org