The phenomena existed before Slashdot, they were just the first site to do it consistently. Since other sites like Digg and Fark are also able to do it consistently, they also qualify to have their own terms for a social DDOS applied to them.
And just how would they have hacked the website? There have been 3 IIS6 exploits (Two "Moderate" and a "Not Critical") in the last 4 years. Only one of them had any potential for gaining access to the site, and only if they were using old school ASP. You have no idea what you're talking about. If people can't design a website that can't properly handle things like SQL Injection (Use SqlCommand.Parameters, on ASP.NET people! They save lives....), then they deserve it.So yeah, one very obscure exploit that could take over a website in 4 years, and only by compromising ASP (Not ASP.NET). That sounds like a server that can be taken down easily.
Richard2 is entirely right in his assertion that these tests are invalid, and it could not have been put into better words. Apache was not designed to run on Winders, and this test does not correctly test Apache's strengths because it is only preformed on one, non-native OS.I would be interested in seeing a proper test of each applications abilities though, as long as it was conducted properly.
@PatrickBrown It could be a configuration issue and both servers could have benefited from an expert reconfiguring it but its hard to ignore that IIS seems to do better with its default setting then Apache
Why not reply to the matter if it is relevant? My opinion was that your question was still relevant today. And I did my homework:TrustLeap G-WAN C scripts are 5 TIMES faster than IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C#, and,TrustLeap G-WAN C scripts are 118 TIMES faster than Apache/PHP 5.Cheers!
icebrkJun 30, 2007
As if /.ers always RTFA... right?
cquinndJun 30, 2007
The phenomena existed before Slashdot, they were just the first site to do it consistently. Since other sites like Digg and Fark are also able to do it consistently, they also qualify to have their own terms for a social DDOS applied to them.
miothegreatJul 1, 2007
And just how would they have hacked the website? There have been 3 IIS6 exploits (Two "Moderate" and a "Not Critical") in the last 4 years. Only one of them had any potential for gaining access to the site, and only if they were using old school ASP. You have no idea what you're talking about. If people can't design a website that can't properly handle things like SQL Injection (Use SqlCommand.Parameters, on ASP.NET people! They save lives....), then they deserve it.So yeah, one very obscure exploit that could take over a website in 4 years, and only by compromising ASP (Not ASP.NET). That sounds like a server that can be taken down easily.
click170Jul 1, 2007
Richard2 is entirely right in his assertion that these tests are invalid, and it could not have been put into better words. Apache was not designed to run on Winders, and this test does not correctly test Apache's strengths because it is only preformed on one, non-native OS.I would be interested in seeing a proper test of each applications abilities though, as long as it was conducted properly.
cosinezeroJul 2, 2007
Then it's also bulls**t unless IIS is running an ASP.NET app.
futureguyJul 2, 2007
@PatrickBrown It could be a configuration issue and both servers could have benefited from an expert reconfiguring it but its hard to ignore that IIS seems to do better with its default setting then Apache
pierregauAug 24, 2009
Microsoft IIS 7.0 is slower in the kernel than TrustLeap G-WAN (in user-mode):<a class="user" href="http://trustleap.com/" rel="nofollow">http://trustleap.com/</a>
kavokAug 24, 2009
Wow nice job replying to a comment from 2 years ago.
pierregauAug 24, 2009
Why not reply to the matter if it is relevant? My opinion was that your question was still relevant today. And I did my homework:TrustLeap G-WAN C scripts are 5 TIMES faster than IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C#, and,TrustLeap G-WAN C scripts are 118 TIMES faster than Apache/PHP 5.Cheers!