On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Mark H. Wood wrote:
http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?uid=681ac5d0-36d8-4217-8e0f-38f5b928fb14
It turns out that another machine on the network had become infected
with "something" (we haven't determined with what, yet) and was
advertising itself as the local d
A quick search turns up this page:
http://www.threatexpert.com/report.aspx?uid=681ac5d0-36d8-4217-8e0f-38f5b928fb14
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Typically when a software vendor says that a product is "intuitive" he
means the exact opposite.
pgp1vpEk4tMHO.pgp
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Doesn't sound right to me... I've certainly never noticed it on win32
installs, though I don't have an environment to test it myself just now
I just tried 2.0.63 and the same thing happens. Using a handful of
sysinternal tools, I can see the fol
Greg Mortensen wrote:
Hi, list.
I need a quick sanity check. I have a stock 2.2.9 httpd (Win32 Binary
including OpenSSL 0.9.8h (MSI Installer)) install on my Windows XP
box. I just got the binary from the veritris.com mirror. The MD5
signature checks out fine.
Everything looked OK while
Hi, list.
I need a quick sanity check. I have a stock 2.2.9 httpd (Win32 Binary
including OpenSSL 0.9.8h (MSI Installer)) install on my Windows XP box. I
just got the binary from the veritris.com mirror. The MD5 signature
checks out fine.
Everything looked OK while connecting to localhost
