From owner-freebsd-current Fri Aug 7 09:18:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA29293 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:18:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pop.uniserve.com (pop.uniserve.com [204.244.156.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA29215 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:17:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca [204.244.186.218] by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #4) id 0z4pCe-0002v7-00; Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:17:16 -0700 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 09:17:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Mark Huizer cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: memory leaks in libc In-Reply-To: <19980807154721.A865@xaa.iae.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Mark Huizer wrote: > > > Hmm... then we should write a nice DoS attack for apache, would that be a > > > reason for solving it? > > > > Couldn't be done. CGI scripts are so short lived, that that memory gets > > cleaned up on its own anyhow. Perhaps specific a DoS attack could be > > tailored to a specific CGI script, but I would argue that the CGI script > > is broken. CGI is used less and less anyhow, as peole use better and > > faster methods of server side scripting. > > > OK, how come a poor little apache server doesn't like this: > > GET / HTTP/1.0 > User-Agent: a > User-Agent: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa > (repeat last 2 lines 20000 times) > (empty line) > > apache on a Linux machine here is still thinking about wheterh or not to > return 100M, time to test it on my home FreeBSD server :-) Really nothing to do with setenv/putenv (which Apache doesn't even use). > Mark > -- > Nice testing in little China... Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message