Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apache 1.3.23 Released

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the recompile-time dept.

Apache 17

meheler writes "Looks like the Apache Group have released version 1.3.23 of their popular web server. Here's a link to the Official Announcement as well as where you can download it, and even view the ChangeLog."

cancel ×

17 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2900095)

I cant't wait for the 1.3.23.1 and 1.3.24 announcements. They'll be even cooler.

Re:Cool (-1, Offtopic)

hummingtroll (553006) | more than 12 years ago | (#2903073)

I read on the apache mailing list that they're going to be announcing fr1st pr0sts and penis birds unless people start displaying a bit more interest in these articles.

Are you sure... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2900122)

...that it was really released this time?

forth post! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909074)

jyes!

Apache 1.3.23 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909115)

Any news on when Apache 2's gonna finally be released?

Re:Apache 1.3.23 (-1)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 11 years ago | (#2941083)

Just got back from the shitter... I think I 'released' a wild Apache or 2 into the unsuspecting septic system. God help whoever encounters that monstrosity.

(sigh) I feel like the Dunkin Donuts guy (3, Interesting)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 12 years ago | (#2914732)

"It's time to roll Apache"...almost as good as "It's time to make the kernel".

What I want to know is why Apache 2.0 hasn't made anymore beta progress in the last month or two than it has. Mind you, it's coming along, but it seems to have been in beta a long, long time. How are they coming with it? The bug tracking list doesn't ever seem to shrink much.

Re:(sigh) I feel like the Dunkin Donuts guy (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 12 years ago | (#2919981)

For real. Last I read on the Apache site, 1.3.22 was supposed to be the last 1.x release of Apache before they went full bore with 2.0. Come on Apache, fix me up with some 2.0 goodness!

Re:(sigh) I feel like the Dunkin Donuts guy (2)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 12 years ago | (#2925931)

There seem to be a lot of win32 changes recently - I wonder if they're trying to get the codebase more cross-platform stable before releasing a non-beta 2.0? Of course, there were almost no changes in the .22 release, so maybe this .23 is what should've been .22. :)

Re:(sigh) I feel like the Dunkin Donuts guy (1)

5alligator (267759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2954370)

They want to make sure that code red works properly before they push 2.0 out the door.

Go apache!

Apache ports... (2)

Mixailo (554994) | more than 12 years ago | (#2922479)

btw, what 'bout Apache ports for cygwin?

Re:Apache ports... (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 12 years ago | (#2938424)

go here http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/cygwin/ for the latest cygwin port of Apache. Doesn't look like there is much there, though.

Why would you want that? (2)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 12 years ago | (#2944928)

I was under the impression that Apache without Cygwin was faster, better, and more secure.

Why would you want to use the cygwin version?

CAN-2001-0731 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2927529)


According to the ChangeLog, vulnerability CAN-2001-0731 is present in Apache 1.3.20, and fixed in 1.3.21. Has anyone managed to reproduce this vulnerability? If so, how? The examples given in the vulnerability report don't seem to work.

We use 1.3.20 at work. It works very well, and I don't want to upgrade unless I really have to, but this is a potentially bad security hole for us.

Just in case, I've disabled MultiViews for now. We'll have to turn it on again in a month or so, unless I can code up a fix for some of our instruments so that they no longer rely on it.

This is the link to CAN-2001-0731 [mitre.org]

-- Guges --

Re:CAN-2001-0731 (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 12 years ago | (#2938402)

I would go ahead and upgrade to 1.3.23

Any upgrade that fixes a security hole is an upgrade worth getting, IMHO, especially if security is an issue.

Re:CAN-2001-0731 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2973076)

I use a web host tat has Apache 1.3.20/PHP 4.0.6/Frontpage 2002 Extensions and i am unable to exploit that hole. It has MultiViews disabled. Someone they must've patched it up.

EDIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2973091)

I mean MultiViews enabled!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?