according to netcraft... - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on according to netcraft... - Microsoft Windows ; http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: according to netcraft...

  1. according to netcraft...


  2. Re: according to netcraft...

    begin ,
    bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    >
    > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com


    OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai

    Oh, that's got to be embarrassing. It seems they are using Akamai as
    reverse proxies. Takes a huge load off of MS's servers if they are
    caching static pages, jpg's, etc.

    **** me, it is the whole microsoft.com domain they have moved to
    Akamai. This must be the greatest example to date that Linux is a
    mainstream OS.

    Wow, www.microsoft.com seems really fast now.


  3. Re: according to netcraft...

    begin <1lf011-1s6.ln1@gentoo.linux.src>,
    rgc@swissonline.ch (Roy Culley) writes:
    > begin ,
    > bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    >>
    >> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >
    > OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    > Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >
    > Oh, that's got to be embarrassing. It seems they are using Akamai as
    > reverse proxies. Takes a huge load off of MS's servers if they are
    > caching static pages, jpg's, etc.
    >
    > **** me, it is the whole microsoft.com domain they have moved to
    > Akamai. This must be the greatest example to date that Linux is a
    > mainstream OS.
    >
    > Wow, www.microsoft.com seems really fast now.


    Oops, nearly forgot. Using reverse proxies also prevents direct
    connections to MS servers. Good security move that. Nothing like
    trustworthy computing at work. :-)

  4. Re: according to netcraft...

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:57:21 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:

    > begin ,
    > bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    >>
    >> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >
    > OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    > Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >
    > Oh, that's got to be embarrassing.


    Did Microsoft pay Akamai to report its HTTP server as IIS, when the
    operating system is Linux? I'd find that more embarassing still.

  5. Re: according to netcraft...

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:59:55 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:

    > begin <1lf011-1s6.ln1@gentoo.linux.src>,
    > rgc@swissonline.ch (Roy Culley) writes:
    >> begin ,
    >> bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    >>>
    >>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >>
    >> OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    >> Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >>
    >> Oh, that's got to be embarrassing. It seems they are using Akamai as
    >> reverse proxies. Takes a huge load off of MS's servers if they are
    >> caching static pages, jpg's, etc.
    >>
    >> **** me, it is the whole microsoft.com domain they have moved to
    >> Akamai. This must be the greatest example to date that Linux is a
    >> mainstream OS.
    >>
    >> Wow, www.microsoft.com seems really fast now.

    >
    > Oops, nearly forgot. Using reverse proxies also prevents direct
    > connections to MS servers. Good security move that. Nothing like
    > trustworthy computing at work. :-)


    Apparently www.deanforamerica.com (Howard Dean's presidential website)
    abandoned Windows 2000 for FreeBSD at the beginning of the year. I guess
    as the contributions came in, he needed something stable, secure and not
    laden with expense.

  6. Re: according to netcraft...

    On 16 Aug 2003 01:30:43 GMT, bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu blathered and smoked:

    > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com


    Yeah. I believe it. They've been bragging about those "crazy uptimes"
    of 2 or 3 months.

    Come to think of it, that was before they put 2003 Server on the web
    and exposed it to real users and all. Maybe that would eplain why the
    length of the "crazy uptimes" is getting shorter.

    --
    If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
    ....Oh, wait a minute. He already does!

  7. Re: according to netcraft...

    begin ,
    Jules Dubois writes:
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:57:21 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
    >
    >> begin ,
    >> bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    >>>
    >>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >>
    >> OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    >> Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >>
    >> Oh, that's got to be embarrassing.

    >
    > Did Microsoft pay Akamai to report its HTTP server as IIS, when the
    > operating system is Linux? I'd find that more embarassing still.


    When you use apache as the reverse proxy by default it returns the
    real servers ID. There is a config setting to get it to report
    anything you want though.

  8. Re: according to netcraft...

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy Simon Cooke wrote:

    : One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    : boxes, because it's certainly not reported.

    ``Which operating systems provide uptime information ? [...]

    BSD/OS
    FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3]
    HP-UX [recent versions]
    IRIX
    Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems
    Solaris 2.6 and later
    Windows 2000
    Windows Server 2003
    Windows XP''

    - http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

  9. Re: according to netcraft...

    rgc@swissonline.ch (Roy Culley) wrote in message news:<1lf011-1s6.ln1@gentoo.linux.src>...
    > begin ,
    > bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    > >
    > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >
    > OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    > Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >


    Last changed 15th August 2003? Maybe this is part of the measures
    they have put in place to avoid being affected by MSBlast.

    "I don't care what you do, just make sure it is secure!"

  10. Re: according to netcraft...

    I, Tim Tyler wrote:

    : http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?...dowsupdate.com

    : The changeover happened the day before the "blaster" virus's DDOS attack
    : on windowsupdate.com was scheduled to strike...

    : Microsoft uses Linux to defend its Windows computers against virus-infected
    : zombie windows boxes that have been turned against their master.

    Microsoft has mostly wriggled away from this worm:

    http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0815mssmart.html

    In fact the worm has been about the /least/ effective attack that could
    possibly have been created to exploit the bug in question.

    Someone hired to take the fangs out of the bug (as a prophylactic
    measure) would be hard-pressed to have done it by wreaking less havoc.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

  11. Re: according to netcraft...

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:15:22 UTC, Tim Tyler wrote:

    -> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Simon Cooke wrote:
    ->
    -> : One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    -> : boxes, because it's certainly not reported.
    ->
    -> ``Which operating systems provide uptime information ? [...]
    ->
    -> BSD/OS
    -> FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3]
    -> HP-UX [recent versions]
    -> IRIX
    -> Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems
    -> Solaris 2.6 and later
    -> Windows 2000
    -> Windows Server 2003
    -> Windows XP''
    ->
    -> - http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos

    Now you don't think microsoft would have windoze lie about its
    reported uptime do you?

    Mark

    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    http://www.os2voice.org
    Warpstock 2003, San Francisco, October 18-19th -
    http://www.warpstock.org

  12. Re: according to netcraft...

    In article <1lf011-1s6.ln1@gentoo.linux.src>,
    rgc@swissonline.ch (Roy Culley) wrote:

    > begin ,
    > bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    > >
    > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >
    > OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    > Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >
    > Oh, that's got to be embarrassing. It seems they are using Akamai as
    > reverse proxies. Takes a huge load off of MS's servers if they are
    > caching static pages, jpg's, etc.
    >
    > **** me, it is the whole microsoft.com domain they have moved to
    > Akamai. This must be the greatest example to date that Linux is a
    > mainstream OS.
    >
    > Wow, www.microsoft.com seems really fast now.

    Yes, Linux/*nix servers make for fast websites. Too bad MS is not
    eating their own "dog food". This kind of takes credibility away from
    Windows Server being a high availability platform.

    --
    Ari Ukkonen

  13. Re: according to netcraft...

    In article <169dff8c.0308160402.e6e1907@posting.google.com>,
    jhaig@maths.man.ac.uk (Joseph Haig) wrote:

    > rgc@swissonline.ch (Roy Culley) wrote in message
    > news:<1lf011-1s6.ln1@gentoo.linux.src>...
    > > begin ,
    > > bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    > > >
    > > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    > >
    > > OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    > > Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    > >

    >
    > Last changed 15th August 2003? Maybe this is part of the measures
    > they have put in place to avoid being affected by MSBlast.
    >
    > "I don't care what you do, just make sure it is secure!"


    The ONLY way to maks any MS software secure is to either turn the
    computer it is running on, off!

  14. Re: according to netcraft...

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:13:33 GMT,
    Simon Cooke wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 05:47:16 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> On 16 Aug 2003 01:30:43 GMT, bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu blathered and smoked:
    >>
    >>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >>
    >> Yeah. I believe it. They've been bragging about those "crazy uptimes"
    >> of 2 or 3 months.
    >>
    >> Come to think of it, that was before they put 2003 Server on the web
    >> and exposed it to real users and all. Maybe that would eplain why the
    >> length of the "crazy uptimes" is getting shorter.

    >
    > One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    > boxes, because it's certainly not reported.
    >
    > And if it's not reported, one also has to wonder how accurate that
    > calculation is.
    >
    > Simon


    They track one of the sequence headers on tcp packets. They are
    incremented on a tick basis.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQE/PmuKd90bcYOAWPYRAtTeAJoDCpRaW6PSqp+IDgmaXPyIR2iT4Q Cg5i/t
    Kso/TNC9YKgW+dIL1KiL0QU=
    =8+PX
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

    Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()

  15. Re: according to netcraft...

    Jules Dubois wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:57:21 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
    >
    >
    >>begin ,
    >> bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu (Jason Bowen) writes:
    >>
    >>>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >>
    >>OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    >>Linux Microsoft-IIS/6.0 15-Aug-2003 213.161.82.33 Akamai
    >>
    >>Oh, that's got to be embarrassing.

    >
    > Did Microsoft pay Akamai to report its HTTP server as IIS, when the
    > operating system is Linux? I'd find that more embarassing still.


    No. This question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the service
    Akamai provides. They're a cache server, not a content server. They
    merely cache static pages and distribute them across servers around the
    world. The content is created by IIS.


  16. Re: according to netcraft...

    Simon Cooke wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 05:47:16 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On 16 Aug 2003 01:30:43 GMT, bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu blathered and smoked:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com

    >>
    >>Yeah. I believe it. They've been bragging about those "crazy uptimes"
    >>of 2 or 3 months.
    >>
    >>Come to think of it, that was before they put 2003 Server on the web
    >>and exposed it to real users and all. Maybe that would eplain why the
    >>length of the "crazy uptimes" is getting shorter.

    >
    >
    > One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    > boxes, because it's certainly not reported.
    >
    > And if it's not reported, one also has to wonder how accurate that
    > calculation is.
    >
    > Simon


    I didn't realize IIS ran on Linux.


  17. Re: according to netcraft...

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:15:22 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Simon Cooke wrote:
    >
    >: One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    >: boxes, because it's certainly not reported.
    >
    > ``Which operating systems provide uptime information ? [...]
    >
    > BSD/OS
    > FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3]
    > HP-UX [recent versions]
    > IRIX
    > Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems
    > Solaris 2.6 and later
    > Windows 2000
    > Windows Server 2003
    > Windows XP''
    >
    > - http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos


    Really? If that's so, then I'm sure you won't mind explaining *how* Windows
    provides that uptime information.

    Given that you know it does, and all.

    Simon

  18. Re: according to netcraft...

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:31 GMT, CJT wrote:

    > Simon Cooke wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 05:47:16 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>On 16 Aug 2003 01:30:43 GMT, bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu blathered and smoked:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com
    >>>
    >>>Yeah. I believe it. They've been bragging about those "crazy uptimes"
    >>>of 2 or 3 months.
    >>>
    >>>Come to think of it, that was before they put 2003 Server on the web
    >>>and exposed it to real users and all. Maybe that would eplain why the
    >>>length of the "crazy uptimes" is getting shorter.

    >>
    >>
    >> One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    >> boxes, because it's certainly not reported.
    >>
    >> And if it's not reported, one also has to wonder how accurate that
    >> calculation is.
    >>
    >> Simon

    >
    > I didn't realize IIS ran on Linux.


    It doesn't. Please do try to keep up.

    Simon

  19. Re: according to netcraft...

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:44:19 GMT, CJT wrote:

    > Simon Cooke wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:31 GMT, CJT wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Simon Cooke wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 05:47:16 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On 16 Aug 2003 01:30:43 GMT, bowenjm@rintintin.colorado.edu blathered and smoked:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/....microsoft.com
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Yeah. I believe it. They've been bragging about those "crazy uptimes"
    >>>>>of 2 or 3 months.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Come to think of it, that was before they put 2003 Server on the web
    >>>>>and exposed it to real users and all. Maybe that would eplain why the
    >>>>>length of the "crazy uptimes" is getting shorter.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>One has to wonder exactly how Netcraft calculates uptimes for Windows
    >>>>boxes, because it's certainly not reported.
    >>>>
    >>>>And if it's not reported, one also has to wonder how accurate that
    >>>>calculation is.
    >>>>
    >>>>Simon
    >>>
    >>>I didn't realize IIS ran on Linux.

    >>
    >>
    >> It doesn't. Please do try to keep up.
    >>
    >> Simon

    >
    > So that indication on Netcraft that MSFT is using IIS is probably incorrect?


    No. Akamai is a distributed proxy network (to put it simply). Their network
    runs Linux; the pages were originally served on IIS.

    Simon

  20. Re: according to netcraft...

    "Roy Culley" wrote:

    >> Wow, www.microsoft.com seems really fast now.

    >
    > Oops, nearly forgot. Using reverse proxies also prevents direct
    > connections to MS servers. Good security move that. Nothing like
    > trustworthy computing at work. :-)


    ====

    linuxburk root # nmap -sS -O www.microsoft.com

    Starting nmap 3.30 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2003-08-18 00:48 CEST
    Interesting ports on 62.4.69.192.deploy.akamaitechnologies.net (62.4.69.192):
    (The 1640 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
    Port State Service
    22/tcp open ssh
    80/tcp open http
    135/tcp filtered loc-srv
    443/tcp open https
    Device type: general purpose
    Running: Linux 2.1.X|2.2.X
    OS details: Linux 2.1.19 - 2.2.20, Linux kernel 2.2.13, Linux 2.2.14
    Uptime 125.497 days (since Mon Apr 14 12:53:58 2003)

    Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 18.297 seconds

    ====

    Hehehe..

    //Peter
    --
    My REAL email address is "gijoe (at) mail dot nu"
    "Gentoo Linux - Because I'm worth it!"

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast