Microsoft IIS v7 Details Emerge 192
daria42 writes "According to several .NET and Longhorn bloggers, the next version of Microsoft's IIS web server will integrate ASP.NET and turn many core features into optional modules in order to provide a smaller security footprint for hackers to attack. In addition, the software's admin tool has been completely revamped, and will allow Web-based remote administration utilising SSL."
Apache (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, Microsoft is learning lessons from open source software and making IIS more like Apache httpd.
Re:Apache (Score:1)
Re:Apache (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps this is like when MS decided to mode the graphics subsystem into the kernel, a way to gain performance at the cost of security and stability.
Re:Apache (Score:2)
My reading of that is that parts of IIS will be written in mangaged
But I don't know enough about the internals to really compare the "pipelines" with Apache modules -- and apparently, neither does anyone else here.
Re:Apache (Score:2)
"Performance at the cost of security and stability, eh? Only time will tell..."
That is assuming said $VAPORWARE ever makes it out the gate...
B.
Re:Apache (Score:1)
The only reason they (read:M$) developed it, and still do, is that they needed to have their own webserver. It's not like they had a product to cover the needs that apache couldn't...
Offtopic: The "confirm you're not a script" really sucks. I have to put on my glasses. Even then my chances to get it right is like 1 to 42...
Re:Apache (Score:2)
Re:Apache (Score:2)
That is totally faulty logic. Just because Apache did something years ago has zero impact on the stability of anything from MS.
Do we have to wait for a 2.0 it to be useful of these new features while apache is already tested?
That may well be true, MS isn't exactly known for stable 1.0 anything releases.
Re:Apache (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apache (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is learning lessons
That's not new, Microsoft has made a pretty profitable business from learning lessons [slashdot.org] (or stealing ideas, one could also argue) from its competitors. That is, after all, how we got Windows in the first place.
And as long as some people are dead-set on using IIS, it seems that making it more Apache-like in ways that Apache is superior to IIS is a good idea. Let's just hope that they continue to learn the more useful lessons and scrapping bad ideas.
Re:Apache (Score:1)
One that would should see this [opensourceversus.com] first.
AFAIC, that's inspiration, not stealing.
theft of ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think "stealing" is a very good word to use, or you start to fall into the same trap that a lot of people accuse organisations like the RIAA and MPAA of. ("Stealing" music, copyright "theft", etc.) That is, unless you agree with them that use of another person's ideas without asking is theft.
Personally I think it's good that Microsoft has finally decided to implement what everyone else has, for a long time, known to be useful. Just because Micr
Re:Apache (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apache (Score:5, Informative)
I was looking for help on url_rewrite on google, when I bumped into some threads where users complained about $company's url_rewrite module not working as expected. He said that he regrets paying for it now. Others suggested him to try out isapi rewrite [isapirewrite.com] ... another pay for module that only provides freaking rewrite functionality. When I read those, I was soooo glad I never had to deal with IIS - I would have never thought that IIS users must go out hunting on google and actually pay for new modules for IIS that are compeletely free (and immediately available) for apache...
Re:Apache (Score:3, Informative)
I noticed the same thing a few years ago (5) with ASP. My roommate in university was an ASP developer, and I had been doing PHP for a couple years at that point. He was working on some application that required DNS lookups, and actually ended up paying for an ASP module/script/whatever to do them. I was totally surprised at this
Re:Apache (Score:2)
Re:Apache (Score:2)
Re:Apache (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience Mono http://www.mono-project.com/ [mono-project.com] has done a wonderfull job at runing ASP.NET apps and web services.
To run clasic ASP get this.
http://www.apache-asp.org/ [apache-asp.org]
If you are concerned with their legality go check Tomcat and JBoss
Cheers,
Adolfo
Legality? (Score:2)
Re:Apache (Score:2)
I made a mistake. My quick googling confused Chilisoft with the link that I posted.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
Adolfo
Re:Apache (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, Covalent already provides us with a
Re:Apache (Score:5, Insightful)
For better or for worse, Microsoft has definatly become a better company because of open source. Open source has definatly gotten better because of Microsoft too. Open source has harped on Microsoft because of security, and Microsoft has made itself more secure. Microsoft has bosted ease of use and a good office suite and as a result we get KDE, Gnome nad open office.
Competition is good.
Re:Apache (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has bosted ease of use and a good office suite and as a result we get KDE, Gnome nad open office.
Agreed! It's just tood bad that KDE, Gnome and OO are getting so much bloated, that they won't (decently) run on small solid state devices or low-end, power saving slow or embedded CPUs. Of course there's xfce, fluxbox etc..., but it's sad that userfriendliness still attracts bloatedness so much.
[OT] werds was Re:Apache (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever someone misspells definitely as "definatly", I often read it as defiantly. Sometimes, depending on the context, it's an even more appropriate word.
-b
Re:Apache (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean when you say that MS has boosted ease of use and a good office suite, I hope you are kidding.
KDE came because of the availability of Qt for free, and because the Qt API was so great, look at the initial KDE announcement (http:/ [kde.org]
Re:Apache (Score:2)
Also, while open office is a great product that has some innovation in it, most of its features were inspir
Re:Apache (Score:2)
In ASP.NET you have to put your security instructions into a text file called "web.config" -
Re:Apache (Score:2)
Web.config would be closer to something like php.ini, although that's not even correct. I recon the closest would be something like a Smarty config file or something under php.
Re:Apache (Score:2)
Ready pitchforks!!
Re:Microsoft funded original Apache development (Score:2)
oxymoronic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it just me, or doesn't that sound contradictory. Opening up your application, let alone your OS for remote hacking. Also, why would Microsoft even blink at enabling remote monitoring/logging of the websites your visit for government agencies? Tell me that that isn't going to be exploited...
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. If everything is modular and you have to enable things by default then it will be off at install time, and won't have any footprint until you enable it. They started the "off by default" route with 2003, it just looks like Longhorn Server is taking it further.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
I would choose to disagree with that analogy, however, because a person who doesn't know the potential security risks of doing this probably isn't fit to serve in that capacity. You can't idiot-proof network administration. The administrator must know how one thing interacts with the other, or he won't be a very success
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:1)
I attended a talk by Microsoft during the week and the speaker claimed that a "click-OK-and-nothing-else" install of SQL server 2005 would not actually install anything! You have to manually select all the features to be installed.
That might be taking it a bit far, but at least they are trying to reduce the security footprint of their products.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
I totally get what you mean, but have you seen how much work it takes to get some of the typical stuff like IIS6 or Terminal Services up and going on Win2003 Server? Compared to Win2000, not that convenient after all.
I think all the new wizards for 2003 are there to discourage that "hm, what's this do?" syndrome.
Indeed. (Score:1)
If they do this wrong, this'll be just another less-secure-than-Apache server, even with separated components.
This SSL security better be tough, lest they receive extra damage to their reputation.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, it depends upon the implementation and how Microsoft sets the defaults. The remote administration part is almost certainly going to be apart from the main server as one of the modular components mentioned in the article. I suspect what we will see is that the IIS admin tool will be an MMC snap-in, and that it will be MMC that will gain the remote HTTPS accessibility, which would make it little different from a remote access enabled install of WebMin.
If they are taking security as seriously as they like to make out, then they will be designing the thing with the possibilty of a remote exploit in mind. That means, having remote access disabled by default, warning the user of the security implications when they try and enable remote access, and making it easy for the user to lock down the remote access by IP as well as HTTPS authentication. Asking for some IP ranges right after the remote access functionality is enabled would be good, or better yet restricting to the local IP anyway and *forcing* the user to enter additional IPs. This data could then be passed to the Windows Firewall as well as used as a "double check" by the MMC console, for an additional layer of protection.
Regardless of the method and security of any implementation, that doesn't stop the usual bunch of losers with out a clue on security enabling global remote access of course. Nor, I suspect, will it stop Microsoft taking a good deal of the blame if and when a load of IIS7 servers get rooted by some future worm that exploits the remote mangement feature because some lunatics enabled it with minimal security.
OT: putty MMC-plugin (Score:2)
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
Nice thought, but I doubt it will happen that way. The MMC snap-in interfaces don't expose enough information to be seamlessly converted to a web interface. The treeview is enumerated through the interface, so that could be webified, but the right-hand content pane is mostly opaque to MMC. Each snap-in can define its own content pane implementation as an
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
I don't see your point. I think the point is: limit the exposure of your server to things you actually need. If you take your web server off the internet it will be quite secure, after all, but that's not a very useful definition of security.
It's nice to see that MS is slowly starting to "get it". It will be nicer still if this means fewer rooted IIS-bots attacking *my* server. One can only hope.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:5, Informative)
Well most servers have remote desktop enabled, and web administration of IIS has existed since IIS 5. I think the point was moreso that you'll be able to fully configure your site. One of the issues, mentioned in the article, that IIS currently has is that there is a disconnect, and overlap, between the settings necessary in IIS and ASP.NET to configure a site properly, and it would be nice if they merged them (which really would be mapping some of the IIS metabase XML into the Web.Config).
Reading this article, I'm still not sure what the real message is- You can already create fully managed handlers and modules for IIS, and the idea of it being pulled "into" IIS is frightening, actually (IIS 6 is a gorgeous design [microsoft.com] because it is like a microkernel web architecture, with an extremely minimalist server module and cache that communicates to external modules to handle things like ASP.NET processing). I suspect some information was misunderstood.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
NTAdmin was also a very cool util for NT4 running IIS.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
I would think this would be a good thing for Open Source enthusiasts. It means that if a company wants IIS, you can keep those servers at a bare minimum, and maintain them from linux/unix/osx ser
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:4, Informative)
But common sense would dictate that the web admin tool would not be turned on to connections from the general internet. Instead, it would be limited to the intranet. If it is turned on to the general internet, then they better be sure there aren't any exploits around. But the same is true of any outward facing service, isn't it? IIS v5 was a travesty in security, but IIS6 has had very little problems where vulnerabilities are concerned (check out http://secunia.com/product/1438/ [secunia.com]). One would hope IIS7 would be even better, given the draconian protocol we have to follow now within Microsoft when it comes to security in code.
Remote GUI administration is already available, by the way. Run IIS manager, choose 'connect' and point it to a remote IIS server with the service turned on, and you'll be able to admin it just as you do your local IIS server.
I would think this is a good thing for OSS enthusiasts. It means that if a corporation absolutely insists on running IIS, then all the other support servers could be Linux/OSX and you could admin the machine through the web interface. Now you still need MS machines running for support, so you can either Remote Desktop to the IIS box, or use IIS Manager.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:4, Informative)
K = Security x Convenience
where K is a constant representing the level of design and implementation skill an organization has.
What I'm saying almost anybody can have an aribtrarily secure system, provided that they are willing to bear a sufficiently large degree of inconvenience. For example, a web site that is served by a diskless server that boots and serves information from a CD-ROM would present limited opportunities for somebody who wished to deface the site, although it is still possible. But such a CD-ROM based system obviously wouldn't be practical for most organizations. Practical systems require a certain level of convenience to be, well, practical. If that level of convenience entails unacceptable security risks, then you either give up on that application as being impractical, or you go looking for a more highly skilled team that can build systems on a tighter trade-off curve.
So, the very first choice is whether to have remote administration or not; I believe virtually everybody can agree that a practical web server has to be remotely administratable. Once you've made this decision, then you have taken a big step on our graph towards the orgiin point -- where real skill really comes into play. Which approach to doing this is the shrewdest? You can't make this decision using general philosophical principles, you need data; or at least assumptions.
For example, suppose I am considering two alternatives to managing my servers remotely: a self contained management system employing HTML forms and https, or one based on remote shell operations using ssh. Without going into this choice in great detail,a lot depends on your assumptions -- not only that, it depends on your marginal assumptions. If I recall correctly, SSH has had its share of vulnerabilities over the years. But I may feel comfortable with it at this point and regard it as "secure enough" for my application. I may have a queasy feeling about trusting IIS's TLS implementation, or IIS's ability to ensure that sensitive operations are properly authorized. This makes turning off IIs's own management system and using something like Remote Desktop tunneled over SSH through a firewall sound like a good bet.
But wait.
Suppose my web site is supposed to handle secure transactions. I'm relying on IIS's TLS to manage mutual authentication using client and server side certificates. I'm relying on it to enforce security policies I've set up. If IIS's security is broken, then I'm hosed. The marginal risk I am exposed to by managing my web server using it's built in tools doesn't seem so dramatic anymore. Using a separate mechanism to manage the web server actutally adds a second, independent channel by which my site can be compromised.
Intuition can be a faulty guide. If your goal is to get to market with close to a 100% of your eggs, you may be better off placing them in a single, well chosen basket, rather than distributing them between two baskets you don't have much trust in. Likewise, when the universe of choices is constrained by your employer or by your client, your best choice may be something you wouldn't have considered otherwise. Gambling when you need money is a fool's game, but if you're stuck in Casablanca without money for a good bribe, then Rick's roulette table starts to look pretty good, even though everyone knows its rigged.
Of course, I'm probably using Apache for this, but you can see the point. Speaking of Apache, Tomcat has a built in management application, and nobody I know of ever complains it is a security issue. That's because nearly everyone trusts Apache, and assumes that it is not a security issue.
Re:oxymoronic? (Score:2)
Nonsense. Organizations - depending on what they choose to emphasize - with great design and implementation skills can deliver solutions with poor convenience and horrible security.
Microsoft is an excellent example of such an organization - they made the strategic decision to emphasize time-to-market and ve
Bring it on, you're heading in the right direction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bring it on, you're heading in the right direct (Score:2)
IIS is module-based (ISAPI) since the beginning.
Re:Bring it on, you're heading in the right direct (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that this information is coming from bloggers. The barrier to entry to blogging about something is that you have the wherewithall to setup an account on a blogging host.
IIS has been module based since day one - ASP is nothing more than an ISAPI module. Logging can be configured as external modules. Filters are external modules.
I read a more detailed account and it really sounds like the big change is
Wait! (Score:5, Funny)
Next Slashdot Headline: Microsoft Takes IIS v7 Out of Longhorn
Re:Wait! (Score:2)
Re:Wait! (Score:1)
SSL? (Score:3, Funny)
just for all you tinfoilhats out there
Sounds good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Microsoft does release the most secure web server ever, they will still have a huge problem to address: how to convince customers to move off of IIS 5, which has been exploited many times. Until that happens, all the new features do them no good at all.
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:1)
No I think their biggest problem is how to enable the large hosting companies to manage sites. I have put together script to add sites and stuff to boxes whcih can be called from database triggers. I do not see how this is even thinkabout with IIS 4/5/6/7.
Until some operating system problems are addressed the I
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good, but... (Score:2, Informative)
With typical Apache hosting, individual users can modify their configurations on the fly with .htaccess files...
This is a majot deterrent for IIS, the first time I used it I was looking furiously for the config file.
All the config seemed to be scattered around little grey boxes, with "tabs" that had more little grey boxes, with circles and what-have-you...it was horrible.
webbased admin tool bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I also noticed the upcoming virtual server 2005 SP1 is using a webbased admin tool. Why something like a virtual machine needs IIS to run to mangage is a little baffling but there seems to be someone at microsoft who always comes up with these terrible ideas.
Re:webbased admin tool bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether it's "insanely stupid" to use IIS as a part of remote admin will depend on how small its footprint turns out to be. I'm skeptical as well, but not at the basic idea, just at MS's ability to implement. If they can deliver a very lightweight web server, more power to them. If not, it will still be useful for machines that have to run IIS for anoth
Server Error in '/' Application. (Score:1)
Lame name alert (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lame name alert (Score:1)
"Internet Information Services Web Server" still sounds like shit, though.
Re:Lame name alert (Score:2)
I use IIS as an FTP server also...and an SMTP server.
Re:Lame name alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lame name alert (Score:2)
Re:Lame name alert (Score:2)
Re:Lame name alert (Score:2)
Re:Lame name alert -- They did. (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.studiodeluxe.net/pws/index.htm [studiodeluxe.net]
Re:Lame name alert (Score:2)
Re:Lame name alert (Score:5, Informative)
But SQL was just a shortening of SEQUEL for legal reasons... [faqs.org]
Re:Lame name alert (Score:2)
NIHS (Score:5, Interesting)
If they've modularized their stuff, this should be possible. They've done this already with TCP/IP, Kerberos and so on.
The overall product, to the extent that it benefitted from the work of free BSD-licensed improvements, would be good for everybody.
Why I hate IIS most. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why I hate IIS most. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why I hate IIS most. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why I hate IIS most. (Score:2)
Funny, that's pretty much what PHP people moving to Ruby/Rails keep saying too. Not that it's exactly difficult to beat PHP, but still..
Re:Why I hate IIS most. (Score:2)
Web devellopment using Tomcat is a breeze, it's fully OOP, and you can choose from lots of MVC frameworks.
You can say PHP is better because is trully free, but Java is a much better language to code on, has a more consistant syntax, and is quite mantainable thanks to javadoc.
I don't know what to say about ASP.NET, because I don't really know it.
Re:PHP not OOP??? Hah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why I hate IIS most. (Score:3, Informative)
ISS 6 already uses XML configuration files. It's in fact a quite rare move in the MS world - until then they only used their beloved "registry". I guess people asked them to use "configuration files", so they went for XML configuration files. But their approach is awkwards, when you edit the configuration file and save it, ISS detects it and the corresponding registry configuration is changed to refl
Re:Why I hate IIS most. (Score:2, Informative)
The synchronization with the registry is necessary for backwards compatibility, since many tools and applications expects to find configuration information in the registry.
Web based administration??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will they fix the backup and restore features so that you can transfer sites server to server without having to configure the whole damn thing?
Re:Web based administration??? (Score:1)
The metabase is just a pain to work with and requires, in most cases the scripting host which is slower than java.
Still bloatware! (Score:1, Interesting)
I can see it now... (Score:1)
Don't care.... (Score:1)
Hmmm. I'm not saying I'm doubtful, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hands up those of you who think this will be nice and secure, and won't have any flaws. Hands up, all of you - cmon, I can't see any hands up.
The best thing they could do is run it on a different port, so that (with correct firewalling) it would only be accessible from the company admin ranges.
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
I can see it already .... (Score:2)
Which, somehow, will still be easily hackable rendering the other security improvments useless because every script kiddie and their sister will be able to get remote admin access.
Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Do you have to upgrade to Windows 2003?
Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... (Score:1)
Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... (Score:3, Interesting)
As others have said, there are countless people who are running ASP sites on IIS. The fact that you encountered a quirk in an outdated hosting option is hardly surprizing. Most certainly your problem relates to some of the securing down of COM.
Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... (Score:3, Funny)
[reply] might you mean "administer?"
No, no, you see where he works they administrate their web servers as part of their effort to strategify maintenential servifaction. His suggestion that the parent educatify himself was within reasonification.
Re:Sorry for a blatant flame, I couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Legacy problems... (Score:2)
I take it you are complainig because updates to your web server caused old applications to break? If you coded webapps in older versions of ASP you must be prepared for the fact that sooner or later Microsoft will drop legacy support for old features or change default settings and they are not alone in this. There have been changes in PHP for example that have broken people's code. Take fo
Re:Rendering. (Score:1)
IIS7 will do nothing for you in terms of webdesign...
Re:Microsoft getting sued for those features (Score:2)
Microsoft could even gamble on a win at some point when the rational thing to do would be to settle instead, and still liscence the technology at a higher price they can still afford. It's a risk that may cost MS something overall, and it's usually ego driven, but it's a mistake that doesn't put the price of liscen