People, if you are going to serve up a popular RSS feed, use a seperate server (or servers). You can't control the clients so you have to be prepared to handle the worst case. Other than bandwidth, an RSS feed should never cause your site to stop handling requests for your site. Be prepared to put a caching appliance in front of your RSS feed if it's *really* popular (/.?)
That said, the client software should poll at intervals related to the start of the application and they should not retrieve the RSS unless it has changed since the last retrieve (hint: use HTTP HEAD). Developers should be shot if they are too lazy to implement these simple 'net friendly features.
I agree that Linux host security is just as bad as NT. Actually, I can't wait for a widely-accepted Linux file system that supports ACLs.
By your definition, NT does nothing well? Most of Linux's functionality comes from the applications and/or modules installed on the system. Most of them have had a limited security history. The ones that have had major problems (sendmail!) have been fixed fast. Notice how fast Microsoft fixes their problems? Hell, Microsoft reintroduces bugs into their software! Compare the security history of Apache versus IIS. Apache wins hands down.
You are either an NT security GOD or you really don't know everything you need to know. We've had ex-DoD NT "GODs" contracted to secure NT application and web servers.
The applications still worked fine. A little later we found vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities exist in key subsystems of NT and IIS. In closing them the boxes are rendered useless. You have to rely more on your network security than your host security when using NT.
IIS is full of holes, many of which you really can't close and still have a web server.
Hehe, not very familiar with security are you? Ever tried locking down an NT server and still have it be a useful entitity on your network? I work for the USDA RD Agency and we use Linux for a lot of our projects. We are very happy with them and they've proven more secure than NT and they still work after being locked down properly. Face it, use NT/IIS, get cracked!
The problem with defending yourself is that other networks will be affected by your retaliation. How many routers will your defence cross?? That's why you don't see armed guards in a shopping mall. Guess who's responsible when your guard harms/kills an innocent bystander while defending your store! Don't get me wrong, I'd love to lock up a hacker's PC if he's attacking me but I don't want to bring down an ISP's router in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
People, if you are going to serve up a popular RSS feed, use a seperate server (or servers). You can't control the clients so you have to be prepared to handle the worst case. Other than bandwidth, an RSS feed should never cause your site to stop handling requests for your site. Be prepared to put a caching appliance in front of your RSS feed if it's *really* popular (/.?)
That said, the client software should poll at intervals related to the start of the application and they should not retrieve the RSS unless it has changed since the last retrieve (hint: use HTTP HEAD). Developers should be shot if they are too lazy to implement these simple 'net friendly features.
I agree that Linux host security is just as bad as NT. Actually, I can't wait for a widely-accepted Linux file system that supports ACLs.
By your definition, NT does nothing well? Most of Linux's functionality comes from the applications and/or modules installed on the system. Most of them have had a limited security history. The ones that have had major problems (sendmail!) have been fixed fast. Notice how fast Microsoft fixes their problems? Hell, Microsoft reintroduces bugs into their software! Compare the security history of Apache versus IIS. Apache wins hands down.
You are either an NT security GOD or you really don't know everything you need to know. We've had ex-DoD NT "GODs" contracted to secure NT application and web servers.
The applications still worked fine. A little later we found vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities exist in key subsystems of NT and IIS. In closing them the boxes are rendered useless. You have to rely more on your network security than your host security when using NT.
IIS is full of holes, many of which you really can't close and still have a web server.
Hehe, not very familiar with security are you? Ever tried locking down an NT server and still have it be a useful entitity on your network? I work for the USDA RD Agency and we use Linux for a lot of our projects. We are very happy with them and they've proven more secure than NT and they still work after being locked down properly. Face it, use NT/IIS, get cracked!
The problem with defending yourself is that other networks will be affected by your retaliation. How many routers will your defence cross?? That's why you don't see armed guards in a shopping mall. Guess who's responsible when your guard harms/kills an innocent bystander while defending your store! Don't get me wrong, I'd love to lock up a hacker's PC if he's attacking me but I don't want to bring down an ISP's router in the process.