From owner-freebsd-chat Tue May 11 12:50:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB2414FF9 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA32122; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:49:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: unknown@riverstyx.net Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , "Daniel O'Connor" , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG, paul@originative.co.uk Subject: Re: [Re: Request For Better Communications] References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 11 May 1999 21:49:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: unknown@riverstyx.net's message of "Tue, 11 May 1999 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org unknown@riverstyx.net writes: > Pardon my ignorance -- Sioux DoS? Never heard of that one. I'm surprised > that they'd actually ignore patches for something that important... They fixed the Sioux DoS by restricting the size of the request headers. The patches I sent were an attempt to fix the real cause of the problem, rather than one of its symptoms (the problem being a severe memory leak) by implementing the equivalent of free() for the pool system, and calling it at certain strategic places. To the best of my knowledge, they never applied my patches - all I got was an 'acknowledgment of receipt' of sorts. I haven't looked at Apache lately - it's horribly bloated IMHO, and I never switched from 1.2.x to 1.3.x - but my guess is the MIME parsing code still leaks like a sieve (it keeps discarding allocated strings without freeing them). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message