Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:49:00 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?B?SXN0duFu?= <leccine@gmail.com> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: Thomas Rasmussen <thomas@gibfest.dk>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Eirik_=D8verby?= <ltning@anduin.net> Subject: Re: Update on protection against slowloris Message-ID: <b8592ed80910020149k4115355bvae750a92665268e3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1254471526.54871.10.camel@strangepork.london.mintel.ad> References: <4AC37D6B.3060409@optiksecurite.com> <4AC3FA90.1000405@gibfest.dk> <1254387556.39148.10.camel@strangepork.london.mintel.ad> <4E7E6B51-2B63-459C-A6FE-F327E899DCF6@anduin.net> <b8592ed80910011146v52be72d8qb2da5aaef28078dd@mail.gmail.com> <1254471526.54871.10.camel@strangepork.london.mintel.ad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hmm, i am curious as well, lets wait to 2.4 On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:46 +0100, Istv=E1n wrote: > > "The bad news is that it can indeed take a badly-configured apache > > server down, and the worse news is that that includes a low-traffic > > out-of-the box configuration. Even with the Event MPM, slowloris can > > tie up one worker thread per connection." > > > > > > > > > > for sure > > > > It doesn't tie up one thread, one thread is partially occupied by > waiting for the slowloris connection to finish sending the request. That > thread can still handle other connections that are sending requests. In > our tests, running a couple of slowloris instances against event MPM had > virtually no effect. > > Cheers > > Tom > > --=20 the sun shines for all
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b8592ed80910020149k4115355bvae750a92665268e3>