On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 05:19:04PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Joachim Schipper wrote:
> >Your worries about losing proxies is correct; it looks like you have
> >that problem mostly covered. I'm not sure it would help much about
> >bandwidth hogs, though - I don't have any numbers on what progra
Joachim Schipper wrote:
Your worries about losing proxies is correct; it looks like you have
that problem mostly covered. I'm not sure it would help much about
bandwidth hogs, though - I don't have any numbers on what programs are
most often used, but something like wget certainly does respect
ro
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 08:03:18PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> I am working on this idea and put into place a series of defense that
> are proved effective so far, but obviously not as practical and speedy
> as spamd is at the moment. It's a variable of scripts here and there
> based on multi
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
3.1 Good users supply data check.
So far most/all of the variations of attacks on web sites are with
scripts trying to inject itself to your servers. Well, you need to do
sanity checks on your code. Nothing can really protect you for that if
you don't check what you expe
Hi,
I am looking on feedback and comments of the following ideas as well as
possible additions to it. Please read on as I would very much appreciate
inputs. But also know it is long too. Sorry, but lots of ideas are
include here.
I am working on this idea and put into place a series of defen
5 matches
Mail list logo
