Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 73313 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2000 12:29:08 -0000 Received: from taz.hyperreal.org (HELO hyperreal.org) (209.133.83.16) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2000 12:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 27270 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2000 12:29:07 -0000 Received: from devsys.jagunet.com (206.156.208.6) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2000 12:29:07 -0000 Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.9.3/jag-2.6) id HAA29914 for new-httpd@apache.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:29:03 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200002171229.HAA29914@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: Server: response header field and ServerTokens again To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:29:02 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: <38ABE9AD.9A45920E@Golux.Com> from "Rodent of Unusual Size" at Feb 17, 2000 07:29:33 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I see no reason not to extend ServerTokens as required. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > According to some mail I've been getting, at least one online > 'security' consultancy is telling their > customers that their Web servers need to omit the Server field > from the response header, or at least any version information > from it. This is to avoid helping crackers go directly to > version-specific exploits. (Their specific instructions to > customers describing how to change the field setting for Apache > are laughable, but..) Apparently some Web customers are requiring > 'ICSA compliance,' which means making their Web service providers > make this happen. > > I'm not in favour of omitting the field altogether, but is it > worthwhile to add something like "ServerTokens ProductOnly" > so that the field look like only "Server: Apache"? 2616 > permits this; the product-version portion is optional. > > Of course, a cracker is going to try *all* the known exploits, > not just some that seem to apply to a specific version, so > the *need* for this is infinitesmal at best. But would adding > this do any harm? It would avoid non-developer Apache people > having to hack/rebuild the source, or possibly moving to another > server just to satisfy their customers.. we *are* supposed to > be the most featureful server. ;-> > -- > #ken P-)} > > Ken Coar > Apache Software Foundation > "Apache Server for Dummies" > > Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation > Conference! > -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"