My apologies... you're absolutely correct. I did a CFDUMP on both "CGI" and
"SERVER" and I mistakenly
read the SERVER.OS.VERSION key as 5.2
The CGI.SERVER_SOFTWARE is "Microsoft-IIS/6.0"
You are correct.
-Novak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> I am using Win 2003 Enterprise, and the system info says it is IIS 6.0
>
> ======================================
> Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
> For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
> Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.
> ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
> Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy:
http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
> ======================================
> If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
>
>
> | Actually Win 2003 is IIS 5.2 and XP is IIS 6.x
> |
> | Don't ask me why. I just happen to have a Win 2003 server right here
and a
> | cfdump reveals IIS 5.2 :-)
> |
> | Also... as far as Win2003 is concerned. I've had CFMX 6.1 running on
> | Win2003 for a couple months now and couldn't be happier.
> |
> | -Novak
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: "Doug White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:19 AM
> | Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> |
> |
> | > You are incorrect.
> | > Win2k supports IIS 5.0 and Win 2003 is IIS 6.0
> | >
> | > There are patched vulnerabilities in IIS 5.0 which are not needed in
> | Win2003 as
> | > the release is a redesign.
> | > For instance the ISAPI filter URLScan is not needed on Win 2003.
> | >
> | > This is not to say that one should not keep up with patches as they
are
> | made
> | > available.
> | >
> | > CFMX 6.1 install on Win2003 is straight forward and relatively easy
when
> | > compared to the CFMX 6.0 install on Win2k and appears to be more
stable.
> | >
> | > IIS6.0 is faster than IIS 5.0
> | >
> | >
> | > ======================================
> | > Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
> | > For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
> | > Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all
databases.
> | > ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
> | > Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy:
> | http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
> | > ======================================
> | > If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
> | >
> | > ----- Original Message -----
> | > From: "Peter Tilbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:45 AM
> | > Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> | >
> | >
> | > | That is total crap as Win2003 is based on WinXP code which was based
on
> | > | Win2K code and as such shares many of the same vulnerabilities.
> | > |
> | > | Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as "safe" as an unpatched
Win2K
> | > | installation.
> | > |
> | > | -----Original Message-----
> | > | From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > | Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 6:35 PM
> | > | To: CF-Talk
> | > | Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | As one who is running servers in both configurations, I strongly
> | recommend
> | > | the
> | > | Win 2003 server.
> | > | First, it does not have the vulnerabilities that are found in Win2k,
and
> | do
> | > | not
> | > | require patching anywhere near as often.
> | > | Second, Most services are default to OFF, which requires a little
more
> | > | attention
> | > | to configuration, but it is easier to leave unused or unneeded
services
> | > | turned
> | > | off.
> | > | Third, the interface is XP like and requires less technical
expertise to
> | set
> | > | up
> | > | and maintain,
> | > |
> | > | ======================================
> | > | Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
> | > | For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
> | > | Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all
databases.
> | > | ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
> | > | Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy:
> | http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
> | > | ======================================
> | > | If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
> | > |
> | > | ----- Original Message -----
> | > | From: "Ryan Sabir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > | To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > | Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:00 AM
> | > | Subject: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | | Hi all,
> | > | |
> | > | | I'm looking at setting up a new CFMX installation and have been
given
> | > | | the option of Windows 2000 Server , or 2003 Server.
> | > | |
> | > | | Which would be the safer option?
> | > | |
> | > | | Not had having a great deal of experience with 2003 I was going to
say
> | > | | 2000, but are there any significant advantages of 2003?
> | > | |
> | > | | thanks, bye!
> | > | |
> | > | | -----------------------
> | > | | Ryan Sabir
> | > | | Newgency Pty Ltd
> | > | | 2a Broughton St
> | > | | Paddington 2021
> | > | | Sydney, Australia
> | > | | Ph (02) 9331 2133
> | > | | Fax (02) 9331 5199
> | > | | Mobile: 0411 512 454
> | > | | http://www.newgency.com/index.cfm?referer=rysig
> | > | |
> | > | |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> |
> |
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
