Greetings,
Our security guy noticed this alert about a XSS vulnerability in
mod_negotiation: http://www.mindedsecurity.com/MSA01150108.html.
According to the link, it applies to apache = 2.2.6, so no worries for
2.2.8.
However, when I double-check the changelog for 2.2.8
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:41:39AM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
I mentioned in the bug that the signal handler could cause undefined
behaviour, but I'm not sure now whether that is true. On Linux I can
reproduce some cases where this will happen, which are all due to
On Feb 5, 2008 5:40 AM, Boyle Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,
Our security guy noticed this alert about a XSS vulnerability in
mod_negotiation: http://www.mindedsecurity.com/MSA01150108.html.
According to the link, it applies to apache = 2.2.6, so no worries for
2.2.8.
However,
Joshua Slive wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 5:40 AM, Boyle Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,
Our security guy noticed this alert about a XSS vulnerability in
mod_negotiation: http://www.mindedsecurity.com/MSA01150108.html.
According to the link, it applies to apache = 2.2.6, so no worries for
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite
different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ?
E.g. the cache_object_t * is populated with the status/date/etc data
in memcache - but not in disk-cache. Is this work in progress or
subtle design ?
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite
different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ?
E.g. the
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite
different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ?
E.g. the cache_object_t * is populated with the status/date/etc data
in memcache -
It seems like mod_proxy has gone through a lot of changes in 2.2,
including changes to handling of timeouts.
I brought up my initial concerns about the handling of ProxyTimeout
on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list and got absolutely no response. :( Perhaps
a patch will get a little more interest there
On Feb 5, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly
quite
different caching strategies
The problem and patch in the below message are in regards to just
the Apache 2.0 line; it seems like a number of improvements in
timeout handling have already been implemented in the 2.2 version
of mod_proxy.
However, also included in my patch is a mechanism to provide even
more granularity in
On 02/05/2008 07:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite
different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ? E.g.
the cache_object_t * is populated with the status/date/etc data in
memcache - but not in
On Feb 4, 2008 1:20 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2008-02-04 20:41:47 David McCreedy napisał(a):
It seems that the pcreposix.h header file, which pcreposix.c includes,
isn't
in the Apache 2.2 source tree.
But I can find it
12 matches
Mail list logo
