Searching \ for '[OT]: xicor.com ?!' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=xicorcom
Search entire site for: 'xicor.com ?!'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: xicor.com ?!'
2006\05\13@091907 by Peter

picon face

The site http://www.xicor.com is a little strange imho ?!

Peter

2006\05\13@093154 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Peter,

On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:19:04 +0300 (IDT), Peter wrote:

>
> The site http://www.xicor.com is a little strange imho ?!

I have no way of knowing - I get "Connection Refused"!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\05\13@102713 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 5/13/06, Peter <spam_OUTplpTakeThisOuTspamactcom.co.il> wrote:
>
> The site http://www.xicor.com is a little strange imho ?!
>
> Peter

Intersil acquires Xicor quite some time ago so you can go to intersil.com for
more infomation.
http://www.intersil.com/pr/shell/0,1091,1137,00.html

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\05\13@102938 by Robert Ussery

flavicon
face
it's just a redirect to 127.0.0.1 - if you have a server daemon running
on your computer, you'll see a site - if not, no site.

- Uss

Howard Winter wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\05\13@114608 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
On Sat, 13 May 2006 10:28:46 -0400, Robert Ussery wrote:

>it's just a redirect to 127.0.0.1 - if you have a server daemon running
>on your computer, you'll see a site - if not, no site.
>

I can't access the site with IE6 or Opera so, apparently, I don't have
a server daemon running on my computer. When I ping 'http://www.xicor.com',
it does show the pings to '127.0.0.1'.

Is this requirement for very many websites? How would one know that
the site isn't just down?

Does running a server daemon open up your computer to any security
vulnerabilities?


Regards, Bob

2006\05\13@121516 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 08:44 -0700, Bob Barr wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 10:28:46 -0400, Robert Ussery wrote:
>
> >it's just a redirect to 127.0.0.1 - if you have a server daemon running
> >on your computer, you'll see a site - if not, no site.
> >
>
> I can't access the site with IE6 or Opera so, apparently, I don't have
> a server daemon running on my computer. When I ping 'http://www.xicor.com',
> it does show the pings to '127.0.0.1'.
>
> Is this requirement for very many websites? How would one know that
> the site isn't just down?
>
> Does running a server daemon open up your computer to any security
> vulnerabilities?

I think you've misunderstood something. A host name resolving to
127.0.0.1 isn't normal, basically it means the site is down or can't
accept any more traffic.

No operating site would redirect to 127.0.0.1 because that would point
your browser to the web server on your own machine. If you have one that
page will show up. If you don't nothing will show up.

TTYL

2006\05\13@133556 by Peter

picon face


On Sat, 13 May 2006, Robert Ussery wrote:

> it's just a redirect to 127.0.0.1 - if you have a server daemon running on
> your computer, you'll see a site - if not, no site.

Sheesh, I missed that. Looked somehow familiar ;-)

Peter

2006\05\13@133843 by Peter

picon face

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Bob Barr wrote:

> I can't access the site with IE6 or Opera so, apparently, I don't have
> a server daemon running on my computer. When I ping 'http://www.xicor.com',
> it does show the pings to '127.0.0.1'.
>
> Is this requirement for very many websites? How would one know that
> the site isn't just down?
>
> Does running a server daemon open up your computer to any security
> vulnerabilities?

No, but the above redirection is a stupid joke. Probably the people who
set it up either did not understand what they were doing or they had a
weird sense of humor.

Assume you would buy a domain and have to park it. The easiest way is to
redirect it to something that belongs to someone else. But 127.0.0.1
belongs to *everyone*. <g>

Peter

2006\05\13@170035 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 20:38 +0300, Peter wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006, Bob Barr wrote:
>
> > I can't access the site with IE6 or Opera so, apparently, I don't have
> > a server daemon running on my computer. When I ping 'http://www.xicor.com',
> > it does show the pings to '127.0.0.1'.
> >
> > Is this requirement for very many websites? How would one know that
> > the site isn't just down?
> >
> > Does running a server daemon open up your computer to any security
> > vulnerabilities?
>
> No, but the above redirection is a stupid joke. Probably the people who
> set it up either did not understand what they were doing or they had a
> weird sense of humor.

Actually it's the best solution when you've run out of bandwidth. By
redirecting to 127.0.0.1 you effectively use the least possible
bandwidth per hit without actually having to turn off anything.

Since most people don't run a web server on their own machine the result
is "web page not available", exactly the error the site operator would
want.

Personally I don't like it as a solution since it CAN confuse people
depending on how their web browser reports the error.

TTYL

2006\05\13@172224 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On May 13, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> Actually it's the best solution when you've run out of bandwidth. By
> redirecting to 127.0.0.1 you effectively use the least possible
> bandwidth per hit without actually having to turn off anything.
>
>
DNS entries aren't supposed to have timeouts so low that changing
the address is useful for anything as dynamic as fixing bandwidth
limitations; the previous address is very likely to be cached in
DNS servers all over the world for timeouts in the range of DAYS.

THe only use for 127.0.0.1 in a DNS table that I can think of is
if the site has some under some sort of DDOS attack based on a
bug they need to fix in a leisurely manner...

BillW

2006\05\13@175002 by Peter Todd

picon face
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 02:22:19PM -0700, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On May 13, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> >
> > Actually it's the best solution when you've run out of bandwidth. By
> > redirecting to 127.0.0.1 you effectively use the least possible
> > bandwidth per hit without actually having to turn off anything.
> >
> >
> DNS entries aren't supposed to have timeouts so low that changing
> the address is useful for anything as dynamic as fixing bandwidth
> limitations; the previous address is very likely to be cached in
> DNS servers all over the world for timeouts in the range of DAYS.

They aren't supposed too, but people do it anyway. Lots of dynamic DNS
services set extremely low TTL's, even as low as one minute. That said
many large ISPs don't honor those TTLs and have minimum caching times.
AOL is a good example of this and many dyndns sites don't always work
correctly on it.

> THe only use for 127.0.0.1 in a DNS table that I can think of is
> if the site has some under some sort of DDOS attack based on a
> bug they need to fix in a leisurely manner...

Ha! Also of course http://www.yourpersonalpornhere.com...

--
.....peteKILLspamspam@spam@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca

2006\05\13@182742 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 14:22 -0700, William Chops Westfield wrote:
> On May 13, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:
> >
> > Actually it's the best solution when you've run out of bandwidth. By
> > redirecting to 127.0.0.1 you effectively use the least possible
> > bandwidth per hit without actually having to turn off anything.
> >
> >
> DNS entries aren't supposed to have timeouts so low that changing
> the address is useful for anything as dynamic as fixing bandwidth
> limitations; the previous address is very likely to be cached in
> DNS servers all over the world for timeouts in the range of DAYS.

I've seen it used for these reasons.

I know for a fact of one site where their host changed their dns entry
to localhost due to unpaid bills.

> THe only use for 127.0.0.1 in a DNS table that I can think of is
> if the site has some under some sort of DDOS attack based on a
> bug they need to fix in a leisurely manner...

But that suffers the same delay you are speaking of. In all cases I've
seen it used the operators were NOT concerned about getting the site
back quickly, only to stop incoming connections.

TTYL

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...