httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Sutton <>
Subject Re: OS Name in SERVER_VERSION (fwd)
Date Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:57:55 GMT
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Marc Slemko wrote:
> > See the "Reporting OS type: was Re: [Fwd: good work!!]" thread that
> > started with:
> > 
> > 	From: Andrew Wilson <>
> > 	Message-Id: <>
> > 	Subject: Reporting OS type: was Re: [Fwd: good work!!]
> > 	To:
> > 	Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:27:43 +0100 (BST)
> > 
> > There wasn't strong disagreement about adding just "Unix" and 
> > "Win32" etc., but no one really said they liked it.
> Have we decided to just drop this? I thought that we had at least a few
> people who thought it was a Good Idea and what we are talking about
> is a bit different from the previous discussion...

It is difficult to get up any enthusiasm for this. At worst it is a
potential security risk. At best it is an unnecessary encumberance on
every response for no real benefit. So +0 on the whole plan, provided
end-users can opt-out of it easily. 

But if it does happen, I like the idea of a really short, simple comment,
e.g. "(Win32)", with only three or so possible values: Win32, Unix, OS/2
(to match the os/* subdirectories, really). Umm, is BS2000 a separate
OS-type? If so, is this a security issue if people recognise it? 


View raw message