Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 6272 invoked by uid 6000); 14 Apr 1998 15:12:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 5560 invoked from network); 14 Apr 1998 14:54:46 -0000 Received: from thoth.mch.sni.de (192.35.17.2) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 14 Apr 1998 14:54:39 -0000 X-Envelope-Sender-Is: Martin.Kraemer@mch.sni.de (at relayer thoth.mch.sni.de) Received: from deejai.mch.sni.de (deejai.mch.sni.de [139.25.105.242]) by thoth.mch.sni.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA03275 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:53:53 +0200 (MDT) Received: (from martin@localhost) by deejai.mch.sni.de (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA04521; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:53:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980414165347.32120@deejai.mch.sni.de> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:53:47 +0200 From: Martin Kraemer To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: OS Name in SERVER_VERSION (fwd) References: <199804140149.VAA00745@devsys.jaguNET.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.69 In-Reply-To: ; from Paul Sutton on Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 10:57:55AM +0000 Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 10:57:55AM +0000, Paul Sutton wrote: > Umm, is BS2000 a separate > OS-type? If so, is this a security issue if people recognise it? IMO, it is "different enough" to be called BS2000. And no, I don't think that is a security risk. I ought to clear that up with my boss, of course ;-) (Anyway, there's always the possibility to disable it. And I'd prefer if it could be disabled at run time because we distribute binary versions and so the end user has no control over it any more unless it's a run time configuration item). Martin -- | S I E M E N S | | Siemens Nixdorf | ------------- | Voice: +49-89-636-46021 | Informationssysteme AG | N I X D O R F | FAX: +49-89-636-44994 | 81730 Munich, Germany ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My opinions only, of course; pgp key available on request