On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Philip Martin
>> <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>> Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I don't know what Surf-Shield does. Its description says: "Can detect
>>>> exploit sites and other complex online threats". There is some more
>>>> explanation on the AVG website, but it's still pretty vague . Maybe
>>>> it does some throttling of requests/responses, inspecting things or
>>>> so, ... but whatever it does, svn+serf should probably not crash or
>>> You could compare the apache logs with/without Surf-Shield.
>>> You could
>>> capture the traffic with/without Surf-Shield and compare.
> Ok, I picked the first failing test, authz_tests.py#4, and executed
> that with and without Surf-Shield. Please find in attachment two zip
> files of those two runs, containing Apache logs and a wire capture, as
> well as the crash dump file.
> I don't see a difference in the Apache logs (they are identical,
> except that the crashing one stops earlier). The wire capture ... I'm
> not sure. The one from the crash is obviously smaller. But when I
> "follow TCP stream" they both seem identical (same number of bytes and
> all), and when I then filter out the followed stream, nothing remains.
> So I'm not sure where the difference is ...
> I'm hoping someone can take it from here. I'm not familiar with this
> part of the code. Maybe the best place to start digging is the crash
> dump (and/or a more thorough analysis of both wire captures). If I
> hear nothing in the next couple of days, I'll put this into the issue
> tracker so it isn't forgotten.
Ok, I finally made an issue out of this:
Received on 2012-05-03 15:42:14 CEST