On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:39:00 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:59:10 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:29:52 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> Since in.indiatimes.com is an akamai host, you can't trust that the
>>> headers you get from that are the same ones that the origin site sent
>>> out. Without knowing what the origin site's IP/hostname is, you can't
>>> get the raw headers, so all your stuff above, is a waste of typing,
>>> since Akamai can, and does, mess with the headers.
>>
>> So then claiming that's it's a Windows server is just as suspect.
>
> there is evidence that it's a Windows server, as much evidence as
> www.msn.com offers anyway :)
Uh.. what?
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.msn.com
>>> Could it all be running on Linux? it's possible, have you proven it? or
>>> even offered compelling evidence? no.
>>
>> And a mere server header is compelling evidence?
>
> Now that you've been shown your header analysis was faulty, you suddenly
> want to dismiss headers as evidence?
I dismissed it to begin with because the server header can be easily
changed. Header order cannot be easily changed.
> It's compelling that it claims to be IIS. Since it's coming through
> Akamai, it *could* be anything. Is it Linux? I doubt it, but if you have
> some evidence, instead of your misdirection and poor understanding of
> headers and how a caching proxy handles them, bring it on.
And once again, the CMS used on the site doesn't use IIS. It uses apache.
The fact that it says IIS is indicitive that the server header has been
changed.
|
|
