Re: Webservers

From: Steve Bremer (
Date: 05/10/02

From: "Steve Bremer" <>
To: "Tom Geldner" <>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:23:50 -0500

> number of reasons. Can people here suggest a low-cost (or free),
> secure, easy-to-administer replacement??

Apache. Version 1.3.x of Apache doesn't perform as well as IIS
when running on windows, but since you said it was a low volume
web site, it should be fine. If you need the performance, you can
try the new Apache 2.x. The initial benchmarks shows that it
performs as well as IIS when running on windows. Apache 2.x is
pretty new, but I'll bet it's still far more secure than IIS.

Steve Bremer

Relevant Pages

  • RE: IIS
    ... Apache is much more secure by default. ... irony I run IIS but this because I know how to harden it). ... recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this ...
  • Re: Windows XP and IIS with .Net
    ... Yes, you could download Apache, but if you are only writing desktop you ... else that requires a webserver it requires IIS. ... need to move to Windows 2000 or Windows XP ... David Dietz -- IIS Technical Lead ...
  • Re: IIS Vs Apache on Windows 2003
    ... is better IIS or apache in Windows 2003 Server ... able to take advantage of insider knowledge, IIS would be faster. ... all these servers were either devel servers or low-traffic ones. ...
  • Re: Security in IIS to where ???
    ... IIS security is not a nightmare. ... Neither IIS nor Apache nor Linux nor Windows is secure in the default ...
  • RE: WebServer?
    ... > <insert OS and Webserver combo> to be able to tighten the box to the ... > Apache vs IIS 5 on Win2k server. ... > compromises of the systems to base which one is actually more secure? ... > still that much better than an IIS 5 box? ...