Re: [WebDNA] DNA suffix
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2008
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 100812
interpreted = N
texte = On a related note, as WebDNA gets more popular, the likelihood of attacks= will no doubt rise=20 significantly so perhaps now is an excellent time to really audit the sec= urity of the software,=20 while it's still relatively quiet. Things like the ?text=3D bug, etc. Jus= t a thought. -Dan On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:14:45 -0400 Terry Wilson
wrote: > At the time, the thinking was that if we weren't using the big name la= nguages, people wouldn't=20 >take us seriously. Hopefully, this attitude will go away with the new i= nitiative to promote=20 >WebDNA. >=20 > On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Christophe Billiottet wrote: >=20 >> Well, this was just that WebDNA, as a web scripting language, is =20 >> far far behind the others in terms of number of active servers and =20 >> sites. If you check a php site, there is nothing different between =20 >> it and any other html site, except for the .php suffix that makes =20 >> it immediately identifiable: "ah! this is another php site" ;-) >> PHP too can use any other suffix (just a matter of mapping it) but =20 >> the default suffix is .php and it seems everybody is satisfied with =20 >> it. Same with .asp >> >> The suffix identifies a technology, and we, WebDNA users, decided =20 >> to hide our technology. >> >> I guess this is not a very good idea if we want to make WebDNA a =20 >> winner product... >> >> chris >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:58, Tom Duke wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Have to say that I agree with Dan. >>> >>> I would certainly support setting .dna as the default suffix - but =20 >>> I like the fact that my sites are not clearly identified with any =20 >>> technology. I also hide the bit with =20 >>> WebDNA comments so there should be no easy way for a user to =20 >>> determine the server side scripting language used. >>> >>> I would think this would be considered good security practice. >>> >>> - Tom >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
On a related note, as WebDNA gets more popular, the likelihood of attacks= will no doubt rise=20 significantly so perhaps now is an excellent time to really audit the sec= urity of the software,=20 while it's still relatively quiet. Things like the ?text=3D bug, etc. Jus= t a thought. -Dan On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:14:45 -0400 Terry Wilson wrote: > At the time, the thinking was that if we weren't using the big name la= nguages, people wouldn't=20 >take us seriously. Hopefully, this attitude will go away with the new i= nitiative to promote=20 >WebDNA. >=20 > On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Christophe Billiottet wrote: >=20 >> Well, this was just that WebDNA, as a web scripting language, is =20 >> far far behind the others in terms of number of active servers and =20 >> sites. If you check a php site, there is nothing different between =20 >> it and any other html site, except for the .php suffix that makes =20 >> it immediately identifiable: "ah! this is another php site" ;-) >> PHP too can use any other suffix (just a matter of mapping it) but =20 >> the default suffix is .php and it seems everybody is satisfied with =20 >> it. Same with .asp >> >> The suffix identifies a technology, and we, WebDNA users, decided =20 >> to hide our technology. >> >> I guess this is not a very good idea if we want to make WebDNA a =20 >> winner product... >> >> chris >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 17, 2008, at 12:58, Tom Duke wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Have to say that I agree with Dan. >>> >>> I would certainly support setting .dna as the default suffix - but =20 >>> I like the fact that my sites are not clearly identified with any =20 >>> technology. I also hide the bit with =20 >>> WebDNA comments so there should be no easy way for a user to =20 >>> determine the server side scripting language used. >>> >>> I would think this would be considered good security practice. >>> >>> - Tom >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
"Dan Strong"
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Sorting (1998)
Sku numbers (1997)
Generating Report Totals (1997)
[WebDNA] Advanced search 'rq' problem (2013)
Help Encrypt/Decrypt eMail (2003)
WebCat2b13MacPlugin - nested [xxx] contexts (1997)
Location of Browser Info.txt file (1997)
Help name our technology! (1997)
Running 2 two WebCatalog.acgi's (1996)
Ship Cost Not working (2000)
PCS Frames (1997)
Signal Raised error (1997)
PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (1997)
NetSplat and WebCat2 (1997)
Sku numbers (1997)
Can't Update records (1997)
Finalizing Orders (2000)
Looking for a Manual (1997)
[redirect] question (2005)
Tcp connect (2002)