simple question:
How can one use tdom to xform an XML file using XSL file ? I parsed the xml file or string fine but have no clue on how to parse the xsl file and do the xformation. Help!
Ibrahim ...
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an e
On 2003.11.24, Dave Aitel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AOLServer usually has a great reputation for security, but the 4.0
> release didn't get a SPIKE run over it until recently, I suspect.
Nice plug, Dave. :-) I do agree, periodically running things like
SPIKE on AOLserver is probably a good id
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 09:48:49PM -, Bas Scheffers wrote:
> > I know I've thought shared memory support would be cool and maybe
> > useful to add to the Tcl Threads tsv/nsv API, and when I mentioned it to
> How do you mean? Isn't nsv shared enough? What I use nsv for is arrays
Shared memory
Not to my knoweldge, but run SPIKE on it and find out...
./closed_source_web_server_fuzz is what I used to find it...
-dave
Michael A. Cleverly wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dave Aitel wrote:
It's not an unknown reason, it's a remote root which you guys already
fixed in 3.4...add the Content-Leng
Andrew Piskorski said:
> Why not? All they need to do is add shared memory support with an
> nsv-like API. Of course, they'd have to WRITE it, which I guess they
> haven't.
True, PHP does have some shared memory, but it's implementation isn't very
nice and definitely not nsv like!
> I know I've
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:30:32 -0500, Dave Aitel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's not an unknown reason, it's a remote root which you guys already
>fixed in 3.4...add the Content-Length check to 4.0 and you should be set.
>
Is this something I can do myself? I would happily do so if possible?
AOLser
Peter M. Jansson said:
> you can run 1 process with 20 or 30 threads, which is similar in concept
> (although not execution) to AOLserver.
Well, yeah, but then you can no longer safely share these interpreters
between different clients. Although you can change the UID they execute
with (keeping you
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Dave Aitel wrote:
> It's not an unknown reason, it's a remote root which you guys already
> fixed in 3.4...add the Content-Length check to 4.0 and you should be set.
I imagine a lot of people are still running AOLserver 3.3+ad13. Is it
vulnerable?
Michael
--
AOLserver - h
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Bas Scheffers wrote:
> Peter M. Jansson said:
> > Just for reference, "syntactic sugar" doesn't do justice to what the
> > Apache team has accomplished. It's a deeper implementation than that.
> It probably is, but it has one _big_ problem compared to AOLserver when
> used wi
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:35:43PM -, Bas Scheffers wrote:
> It probably is, but it has one _big_ problem compared to AOLserver when
> used with a scripting language like PHP. They are independent processes,
> which is safe, but it means that you cannot share data between
> interpreters, like
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:24:28PM -0500, Andy Feng wrote:
> I realized that there are people who are working on WebDAV support for AOL
> Server.
> nsdav
> nswebdav
> How does such implementation compared with Apache WebDAV implementation
> (web_dav)? Has anyone tried to plug Apache's mod_dav in
Peter M. Jansson said:
> Just for reference, "syntactic sugar" doesn't do justice to what the
> Apache team has accomplished. It's a deeper implementation than that.
It probably is, but it has one _big_ problem compared to AOLserver when
used with a scripting language like PHP. They are independen
If you have some time, would you mind sharing some of the lessons
learned trying to move Apache modules to AOLserver with folks on the
list? Thanks!
- Nathan
Todd Gillespie wrote on 11/24/03, 3:16 PM:
> Yes, we tried that for nsdav. It was a disaster of sorts, althought some
> lessons were le
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Andy Feng wrote:
> I realized that there are people who are working on WebDAV support for AOL
> Server.
> nsdav
> nswebdav
Can I get a link on that one?
> How does such implementation compared with Apache WebDAV implementation
> (web_dav)?
tDAV is more compliant with the
I should note that we don't expect that there would be a great deal of
difference in terms of scalability if tDAV were to be compared with a
complete C-based dav module. tDOM is extremely fast, the amount of tcl
is actually quite small and at their core tDAV and moddav are similar
as they both use
nsDAV was an attempt at taking Apache's moddav and munging it into
AOLserver. It failed because the two projects are divergent and
apache's code isn't so hot.
Since then, we've finished tDAV, which is a Tcl-based DAV server using
tDOM. It's based on the work that Dossy started and Nathan Folkman an
Folks,
I realized that there are people who are working on WebDAV support for AOL
Server.
nsdav
nswebdav
How does such implementation compared with Apache
WebDAV implementation (web_dav)? Has anyone tried to plug Apache's mod_dav
into AOL server?
Regards,
Andy
Feng
Tel:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Andrew Piskorski wrote:
> I'm not familiar with how Apache's "perchild MPM" works, but from your
> description it sounds like Apache has some syntactic sugar to
> accomplish the exact same thing, using one Apache as the front end.
Just for reference, "syntactic sugar" doesn't
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Joshua Ginsberg wrote:
> I thought/hoped AOLServer worked in a similar manner.
Nope. Doesn't. Sorry.
> Since each virtual
> server doesn't appear to share the same memory space
No, they don't.
> (e.g. independent nsv
> buckets)
Having independent buckets doen't imply d
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:16:10AM -0500, Joshua Ginsberg wrote:
> I suppose a better way of phrasing my question would be relative to the
> Apache perchild MPM. With this MPM, each virtual server runs as a distinct
> process, threading within itself to handle connections. As such, each
> virtual
Andrew Piskorski wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:19:05AM -0500, Dave Aitel wrote:
This is someone brute forcing the remote heap overflow in AolServer.
Is this bug documented somewhere? Could it be one of these two?
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=3152&atid=103152&func=detail&aid=2
Quoth Peter M. Jansson...
---
Only possible if you use separate instances (and therefore processes) for
the virtual servers.
If you're hosting a bunch of sites, and you can limit dynamic content to
CGI, you can use something like CGIWrap to do this, but there's no way to
have a single process with
Thanks for reporting. I've asked someone on my team to look into this.
We'll let you know what we find.
- Nathan
Andrew Piskorski wrote on 11/24/03, 10:59 AM:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:19:05AM -0500, Dave Aitel wrote:
> > This is someone brute forcing the remote heap overflow in AolServer.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:19:05AM -0500, Dave Aitel wrote:
> This is someone brute forcing the remote heap overflow in AolServer.
Is this bug documented somewhere? Could it be one of these two?
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=3152&atid=103152&func=detail&aid=229071
http://sourceforge.n
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 16:30, you wrote:
It's not an unknown reason, it's a remote root which you guys already
fixed in 3.4...add the Content-Length check to 4.0 and you should be set.
Ah, *that* is the beast! Thanks for the info!
Cheers
Zoran
It's quite difficu
We've also randomly seen this "unable to alloc
bytes" error message when starting 3.4. In our case, it's not a VM
resource problem - it's some other kind of weirdness. It displays
this message, exits, init respawns it, then it starts okay. Probably
not at all related to your situation, since yo
On Monday 24 November 2003 16:30, you wrote:
> It's not an unknown reason, it's a remote root which you guys already
> fixed in 3.4...add the Content-Length check to 4.0 and you should be set.
>
>
Ah, *that* is the beast! Thanks for the info!
Cheers
Zoran
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
It's not an unknown reason, it's a remote root which you guys already
fixed in 3.4...add the Content-Length check to 4.0 and you should be set.
-dave
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2003 16:20, you wrote:
We are running aolserver 4GM on debian and are having trouble keeping it
ali
This is someone brute forcing the remote heap overflow in AolServer.
-dave
Brad Chick wrote:
We are running aolserver 4GM on debian and are having trouble keeping it
alive. The problem seems to be that somehow, aolserver continually respawns
until there are ~100 or more processes running (iden
On Monday 24 November 2003 16:20, you wrote:
> We are running aolserver 4GM on debian and are having trouble keeping it
> alive. The problem seems to be that somehow, aolserver continually respawns
> until there are ~100 or more processes running (identified by a ps). At
> that point, aolserver eit
What is the inittab line your using?
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
We are running aolserver 4GM on debian and are having trouble keeping it
alive. The problem seems to be that somehow, aolserver continually respawns
until there are ~100 or more processes running (identified by a ps). At that
point, aolserver either just hangs, with nothing notable in the log file,
Many thanks! I'll keep you informed.
On Monday 24 November 2003 15:01, Tomasz Kosiak wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Wolfgang Winkler wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > If anyone knows where to get this software, could the URL please be
> > posted here? I'm interested in maintaining the application!
> >
> > wiw
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Wolfgang Winkler wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If anyone knows where to get this software, could the URL please be posted
> here? I'm interested in maintaining the application!
>
> wiwo
I've successfully contacted Simon Millward. He's looking for the code.
You can contact him at http://ww
Hi!
If anyone knows where to get this software, could the URL please be posted
here? I'm interested in maintaining the application!
wiwo
On Saturday 22 November 2003 20:46, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Saturday 22 November 2003 10:15 am, you wrote:
> > Does anybody know what happend to www.open-msg.co
35 matches
Mail list logo
