Sameer R Manek wrote:
>
> <html><blink> <- present for those who read with netscape
Oops, I'm afraid not... As far as I know, Netscape automatically
interprets some html stuff, like if I put www.home.netscape.com, if you
were reading in Netscape, you would see it as a link, but, apparently,
it doesn't recognize explicit tagging.
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Jeromie Jackson wrote:
> >
> > I have been looking at the security of the web server itself, and was
> > wondering what people think about using something like a Macintosh for the
> > server. My initial thought is that because it doesn't have a command-line
> > interface, and all other servers/daemons can be turned off, it would be a solid
> > OS to use. I have been looking @ CMW solutions, and they appear to be quite
> > pricey, out of the range of what most corporations are willing to spend (~$30K)
> >
> The problem with a macintosh server that we've experenced is that they
> crash really easily. You can crash a lot of macintosh severs just by
> holding the alt-r (reload) button down on your browser.
>
> What i think would be a great way do it assuming that your web pages
> change quiet often, would be to nfs mount read only your web pages.
> (some suggest to burn a cd if you have a static web pages, or a large
> budget)
>
> A pair of freebsd or linux boxes would be perfect for this. One
> would be the nfs server, and have accounts for those who create
> pages, the second would be the webserver, which would have a minmal
> number of accounts. The webserver could also be really locked down,
> ie most daemons would be turned off, ideally you won't even run
> inetd or sendmail. This way if they manage to break into your server
> they can't mess with the pages. (possibly they could umount it)
>
> Figure the hardware cost of the two boxes to be under 4k, and
> at worst case about 16 man hours of labor ( 2 days ).
>
> </blink></html>
References:
|
|
