On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 16:03 +0200, Ottavio Campana wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:35:18AM -0400, Mark Deneen wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 03:06 +0100, Jon Povey wrote: > > > davinci-linux-open-source-boun...@linux.davincidsp.com wrote: > > > > Could someone please tell me if there is a better, smaller, > > > > easier to cross compile, and secure web server that you would > > > > recommend? > > > > > > http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/ looks promising at a glance. > > > I haven't tried it, but it's small and uses GNU configure so may > > > not be painful to cross-compile. > > > > > > I'd be interested to know your results - I may need to do something > > > similar soon. > > > > > > As for security.. always a crapshoot. > > > Perhaps you gain a little security through obscurity not using Apache. > > > > > > Depending on what you need the web server to do, here's a few more > > options: > > > > 1. lighttpd http://www.lighttpd.net/ > > 2. uhttpd https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/uhttpd?rev=20573 > > 3. publicfile http://cr.yp.to/publicfile.html > > > > lighttpd is the most advanced of the three, but it has fewer bells and > > whistles than apache. > > if the task is just serving a few pages also busybox comes with a minimal > webserver. > > You can do cgi with it, but you need to write shell scripts. >
Yes, busybox does a pretty good job. It spawns a process per connection, which may not be what you want. I don't believe you can (easily) control the maximum number of concurrent connections, so it would be pretty easy to perform a DoS attack. uhttpd was designed to be a drop in replacement for busybox, so it also does cgi. In short, you have a lot of portable options! Best Regards, Mark Deneen Saucon Technologies _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
