"R. DuFresne" wrote:
> Yes, still vulnerable, but harder to pick out of a crowd
"harder"? Not good enough - has to be impossible.
> > The default behaviour is good because it advertises to the world what a
> > great server we're using and lets developers keep track of uptake of
> > upgrades - it's an excellent way of tracking the development of the web
> > and contributes to the feel-good community spirit of the the Wonderful
> > World Wide Web. If we all start hiding things for no good reason, we get
> > hung up on this suspicious, scaredy-cat, keep-everything-secret
> > mentality which is bad for the soul.
> >
>
> Bogus, totally bogus.
Opinion, just an opinion.
> > PPS Check out IBM, HP, Compaq, the CIA, the FBI... none of them hide the
> > signature!
>
> pretty near of of which have been compromised in one way or another.
...because they print the version? Geeza break!
> The issue here remains, you have given no valid reason that obscuring the
> info about what kind of server is ruuning should not be done,
Yes I did - you just didn't like it.
Rgds,
Owen
PS I wonder why the CIA, MI5, FBI etc. still advertise? You should warn
them about the risk they're running...
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
