Live data from Hacker News

Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

mailman.nginx.org

161–170 of 501 posts

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#161
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if it's not compiled in by default, then you aren't shipping the code! Somebody is downloading it and compiling it themselves!

If the feature is in the code that's downloaded, regardless of whether or not the build process enables it by default, the code is definitely being shipped.

Yes. It's no different from any optional feature. Actual beta features should only be shipped in beta software .

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HAProxy is an enterprise load balancer that's available through Red Hat or other OSS Vendor. Nginx is just so easy to configure...

HAProxy is a wonderful load balancer that doesn't serve static files thus forcing many of us to learn Nginx to fill the static-file-serving scenarios. Caddy seems like a wonderful alternative that does load balancing and static file serving but has wild config file formats for people coming from Apache/Nginx-land.

Just for completeness sake and probably not useful to many people, HAProxy can serve a limited number of static files by abusing the back-end and error pages. I have done this for landing pages, directory/table of content pages. One just makes a properly configured HTTP page that has the desired HTTP headers embedded in it and then configure it as the error page for a new back-end and use ACL's to direct specific URL's to that back-end. Then just replace any status codes with 200 for that back-end. Probably mostly useful to those with a little hobby site or landing page that needs to give people some static information and the rest of the site is dynamic. This reduces moving parts and reduces the risk of time-wait assassination attacks.

This method is also useful for abusive clients that one still wishes to give an error page to. Based on traffic patterns, drop them in a stick table and route those people to your pre-compressed error page in the unique back-end. It keeps them at the edge of the network.

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#164
post #47

Time for me to slowly start looking for an alternative. There was a time when I wanted to move away from it and was eyeing HAProxy, but the lack of the ability to serve static files didn't convince me. Then there was Traefik, but I never looked too much into it, because Nginx is working just fine for me. My biggest hope was Cloudflare's Rust-based Pingora pre-announcement, which was then never published as Open Sourc…

I mean I’m not sure how it’s good to want to move to a dev who is against CVEs and disclosures…

Did I miss something regarding that Maxim didn't want CVEs and disclosures? I was not aware of this. And F5 are the ones wanting to add the CVEs (as happened in the announcement which was released an hour earlier)?

I could have sworn that I've read about Nginx CVEs in the past.

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#166
post #42

What a coincidence, some days ago I was reading some HN posts related to lighttpd and I found [1]. The link is dead and it has inappropriate content, so use arhive.org. The author doesn't go too much in detail of why nginx being purchased is a problem, but in how to configure lighttpd. And the first comment predicts the hypothetical case of F5 being problematic. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19413901

I have been using lighttpd which can also host static content and do proxying, on top of those lighttpd supports cgi/fastcgi/etc out of the box as well, and it takes 4MB memory only by default at start, so it works for both low end embedded systems and large servers.

I've recently needed to build a docker image to run a static site. I compiled busybox with only it's httpd server. It runs with 300kb of ram with a scratch image and tini.

I didn't compile in fastcgi support in to my build, but it can be enabled.

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#167

Tangent, but I got curious about contributing so I went to the Freenginx homepage, it looks like this project will be organized over mailing list. I would love if someone would create a product that gives mailing list a tolerable UI.

SourceHut? It’s a forge organized around an email rather than pull request workflow.

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#168

Tangent, but I got curious about contributing so I went to the Freenginx homepage, it looks like this project will be organized over mailing list. I would love if someone would create a product that gives mailing list a tolerable UI.

Have you tried HyperKitty/Postorious? Does it get closer to what you would consider tolerable?

https://mail.python.org/archives/list/mailman-users@python.o...

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#170
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've been with F5 since 2010 - gotta love those old PortMasters though, Livingston was good times, until Lucent took over. I was there 95-98. I don't know what else there is to say really. The QUIC/HTTP/3 vuln was found in NGINX OSS, which is also the basis for the commercial NGINX+ product. We looked at the issue and decided that, by our disclosure policies, we needed to assign a CVE and make a disclosure. And…

> Honestly, anyone could have gone to a CNA and demanded a CVE and he would not have been able to stop it. That's how it works. Even if third parties can file CVEs, do you think it hits different when the parent organization decides to do so against the developer's wishes? Why do he and F5 view the bugs differently? It sounds like the fork decision was motivated less by the actual CVEs and more about how the decision…

Personally, I think its more honest if the parent org does not try to contest a CVE being assigned to a legitimate issue. If a CNA gets a report of a vulnerability in code, even if its an uncommon configuration, they should be assigning a CVE to it and disclosing it. The entire point of the CVE program is to identify with a precise identifier, the CVE, each vulnerability that was shipped in code that is generally available.

Based on my observation of various NGINX forums and mailing lists, the HTTP/3 feature, while experimental, is seeing adoption by the leading edge of web applications, so I don't think it could be argued that its not being slowly rolled into production in places.

Post reply on HN