-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Akins, Brian wrote: > Why? The "apache is bloated and slow" argument is just plain incorrect. > (FWIW, I have nothing against eitehr of those other than the FUD they spread > about apache.)
Why? Two reasons: 1) To test and get to know them. It was real fun. 2) After testing, they proved much more efficient performance-wise, and they have some very useful modules (mod_evasive, for instance). - From a "completeness" perspective, they still lack lots of the high-quality modules Apache has. > So, they wouldn't work on lighttpd, I suppose. Exactly, that's why I still use Apache for them. (example: pmwiki) > Mod_security can front fastcgi quite easily. There may be some instances > where it doesn't work for all types of rules. (?) I'd appreciate more information from you regarding this. Thanks! - -- Arturo "Buanzo" Busleiman Independent Linux and Security Consultant - SANS - OISSG - OWASP http://www.buanzo.com.ar/pro/eng.html Mailing List Archives at http://archiver.mailfighter.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI7SGcAlpOsGhXcE0RCqrbAJwIkYjBb8NAaOYXWZ/KKKyPMEOTeQCfb8qf 7ML4pKlZlhwNRXPzsDKy1l8= =DfGf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
