André Warnier wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> André Warnier wrote: >>> fredk2 wrote: >>>> Would'nt you think that a (simple) timer for the header could fend off >>>> some >>>> of the effect. Can't we assume that if it takes more than 3 second to >>>> enter >>>> the header we do not want that client (i'll have to learn to type >>>> faster in >>>> telnet :-). >>>> >>> For the headers, I think it might help. >>> But I'm sure that then the attack would switch to sending the headers >>> fast, and then a long POST body, veeeeery slowly... >>> >>> On another track, it seems that the "Event MPM" model of Apache also is >>> relatively insensitive to the slowloris thing. >> >> ... except, again for POST bodies. Event MPM does not help, there. >> > So basically, Fame and Gratitude (and an Apache teeshirt ?) await > whoever can design an effective strategy against this.
Timeout handling can be refactored to 'behave as advertised'... there is a discrepancy with the documentation. But a pure asynchronous server would break 50% of handler and a good chunk of the filter modules out there. First, threading stripped them of the ability to use 'static' storage; now free threading (resuming on an arbitrary thread) will strip them of using tls storage. It's a major 3.0 breaking change when this is introduced; it will be but it's not right around the corner. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
