Contributed by jose on from the port-80 dept.
"I like apache. It can do naything or nothing, whatever you request. But what, if you just demand a low-bandwidth, static-only, http-server running under OpenBSD? It should hopefully be way easier to make that one secure. Does anyone of you now such beast? "Well, I do know of wn and thttpd . Does anyone have any experiences in long term use of these compared to Apache? Do they fit the bill? Are there others worth looking at?
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Jesper Louis Andersen () jlouis@diku.dk on mailto:jlouis@diku.dk
thttpd has had security bugs. Considering this is OpenBSD it might not be the best thing to have had. What do we win by a fast program with errors?
mathopd is a good one. As far as I know, it has no security bugs and is quite fast. http://www.mathopd.org
By Anonymous Coward () on
It's all configured on the command line, so even the complexity of configuration files is missing.
1 .c file, 2111 lines of code. Code isn't a mess. Small enough that you could audit it yourself and feel comfortable with the result.
If you wanted a small web server that does HTTP 1.1, with minimal functionality, this has got to be a good candidate.
By Matt Liggett () mml@pobox.com on http://pobox.com/~mml
http://www.boa.org/
By W () on
You can also check out http://www.publicfile.org/ for some neat add-ons, in particular the custom error messages and directory redirection patch.
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Anonymous Coward () on
old, but simply serves static pages
By Anonymous Coward () on
I discovered this cute and lightweight server ages ago, precisely because I had decided that Apache was overkill. It's very nice C++ and only does one thing and does it well: it serves documents from /var/www; no CGI support, no home directory escapes; nothing but sending images and text from locations relative to /var/www.
dhttpd homepage (no longer developped)
newer version by Debian package maintainer
By paul nendick () pnendick@yahoo.com on mailto:pnendick@yahoo.com
By John () jhedditc@physics.adelaide.edu.au on http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~jhedditc/
had a look through all of the code and didn't see
anything, and it's very easy to configure.
By jolan () on
By bengt kleberg () eleberg@cbe.ericsson.se on mailto:eleberg@cbe.ericsson.se
By Anonymous Coward () on
By RC () on
What I think we need is something like a simlified SMTP (message numbers at the beginning and end of section only). Less overhead means more data going over the lines, quicker.
At best, HTTP is kludgy. Why can't anyone put together a single simple and effecient protocol? Something to at least challenge HTTP.