On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:00:10 +0100, Gordon Joly wrote: > At 15:20 +0100 11/8/06, phil wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:29:02 +0100, Gordon Joly wrote: > Hello Phil, > > Aha! I see what you mean. Here is another well know site as reported > by Netcraft: > > http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.bbc.co.uk
Hiya Gordo Yep, as you can see the BAA site is giving us an alternate ETag for each request indicating at least two hosts behind their hardware load balancer and also they are intentionally limiting the server signature, so Netcraft won't notice an Apache upgrade. [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ ] $ echo -e 'HEAD / HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n' | nc www.baa.com 80 | egrep "Server|ETag" Server: Apache ETag: "f816-1804-55731340" [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ ] $ echo -e 'HEAD / HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n' | nc www.baa.com 80 | egrep "Server|ETag" Server: Apache ETag: "caca-17c5-2dd2b40" Also httprint reported the following:- Banner Reported: Apache Banner Deduced: Apache/2.0.x Score: 137 Confidence: 82.53 They could patched and up-to-date or they could be full of holes, and without more digging who knows, I'm not investigating,, as I live in East London and I wouldn't want to give the boys wearing the doc martins an excuse to break my door down ;) -- phil. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
