http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2011/10/26/litespeed-against-thc-ssl-dos/ Inside LiteSpeed Team Fri, 24 May 2013 18:12:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2011/10/26/litespeed-against-thc-ssl-dos/comment-page-1/#comment-3263 h4xr Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:04:12 +0000 http://blog.litespeedtech.com/?p=243#comment-3263 Waiting for script kiddies to piss off.. lol

]]> http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2011/10/26/litespeed-against-thc-ssl-dos/comment-page-1/#comment-2798 Animoden Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:50:19 +0000 http://blog.litespeedtech.com/?p=243#comment-2798 Litespeed is really improssive you said is it 9 times faster than apache , i say it is 20 times faster and better than apache , keep the good stuff going litespeed , and god bless !

]]> http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2011/10/26/litespeed-against-thc-ssl-dos/comment-page-1/#comment-2559 George Sat, 05 Nov 2011 06:59:04 +0000 http://blog.litespeedtech.com/?p=243#comment-2559 Thanks for the info, by default litespeed sets connection limits soft/hard to 10000, in light of the-ssl-dos news, what would normal values to set ? the docs recommend for soft limit 5-10 and hard limit 10-50, so would soft 10 and hard 50 be sufficient where no attack exists right now but to set it 'just in case' situation ?

]]>