Talk:Internet Information Services

message: Are you sure this is still true?  I work in very large tech company. IT said that it can support more then 10, more then 1000 etc.?
"IIS 5.1 for Windows XP Professional. IIS 5.11 for Windows XP is a restricted version of IIS that supports only 10 simultaneous connections and a single web site". 64.102.254.33 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of IIS 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0, they can all support thousands of connections -- depending largely on hardware configuration.  IIS 5.1 for 32-bit XP Pro only supports 10 simultaneous connections. See: Internet Information Services 5.1.  This is more a function of the operating system than of the web-server, however. (see: Windows XP Professional Resource Kit). As a side-note, 64-bit XP Pro came with IIS version 6.0 instead of version 5.1. //BankingBum 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 Connection Limit for 5.1

message: In an attempt to combat link spam, I've added the substituted template  to the external links section as per Wikipedia:Spam#Tagging_articles_prone_to_spam Christopher G Lewis (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Spam 

message: Gogo Dodo removed some deep links that were in the external links section.  However, these were actual links to the MS TechNet doc section for IIS 7.  What's the determination of a "Deep Link"? Christopher G Lewis (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Links 

message: I'm proposing that we alter the External links to:
* Microsoft Internet Information Services product page
* IIS.net - Internet Information Services Community Portal
* IIS 7.0 Technical Reference
* IIS 7.0 Operations Reference
* IIS Security Guidance 
* IIS Installation for XP
The XP install link may be, but Windows XP older technology, and IIS is generally thought of as a server product. 
Finally, any thoughts on splitting links via version - IIS7, IIS6?
Christopher G Lewis (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think the installationr:Soumyasch|soum]] talk 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I just read in a newspaper site in Spanish (oh wait, here is a English source http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/04/microsoft-datab.html) that there has been a massive hack attack against several web pages, all of them running on IIS. I thinki this is important and it should be added.--ometzit<col> (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a generic SQL injection attack and any web server can be used as an attack vector. There is nothing special about these attacks, nor anything specific about IIS, in that they do not exploit any security holes in IIS, but rather in the web application itself - which is not a part of IIS. Neither IIS nor Microsoft SQL Server are to be blamed for that. --soum talk 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive hack attack

message: Internet Information Services (IIS) 7 is NOT available in Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP!!! 
Microsoft Web Platform Installer (Web PI) does NOT install IIS 7 on Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP computers, and it installs IIS 6 or 5.1 on those computers... However, Web PI installs IIS 7 Manager for Remote Administration on Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP... In addition, IIS 7 Manager for Remote Administration does NOT support IIS 6 or 5.1... 
Therefore, please do NOT state that IIS 7 supports Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP!!! UU (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Internet Information Services 7 

message: Perhaps the article should include a clarification that is nowhere to be found in Microsoft-related literature: Why should a simple user having XP or Vista need IIS in the first place?. It would seem that Microsoft is assuming that every Windows PC out there is going to perform as a web server, sooner or later, and has taken measures to insure the IIS service is present and active everywhere, even if it doesn't: when an attempt is made to stop it (with the aim of disabling it altogether) a warning message appears that says the SMTP (outgoing mail) service is also going to be stopped. Which leads me to further intriguing questions about the relationship between those two services. Thanks, SciCorrector (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who does '''''really''''' need it? 

message: "But benchmarks show that even IIS 7.0 in the kernel is slower than others that run in user-mode[8]."
This is not true: Only a single benchmark is referenced, and that benchmark compared IIS to a hardly known software called G-WAN. The benchmark was done by G-WAN's creators (Neutrality?)
Also, on the same site they claim that IIS is fastest, but only because Windows is unneccessarily slow in user mode on Windows XP(!).
Speed on XP is irrelevant for server apps, and the TCP/IP stack of Windows 2008 Server is known to be much better than XP. etc.
I suggest this claim and the reference are removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherofinvention (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sloppy benchmark reference 

message: In "Security", the article says: "But the HTTP.SYS kernel-driver delivered better performances at a price. [...]"
Although not mentioned, this is a verbatim copy of the same source [8] as the above issue (gwan.ch). It reflects poor understanding of the user/kernel mode discussion. Windows has always been plagued with the quality of 3rd party device drivers (bluescreens), so moving some of them to user mode is a good thing. However, http.sys is not a device driver, but a part of the Windows kernel. If somebody knows of any reports about http.sys causing kernel crashes, this remark would make sense. Otherwise, this is only a theoretical nitpicker's argument. 
I suggest removing this paragraph.
Motherofinvention (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  kernel driver claims 

message: The following sentence makes no sense: "By default IIS 5.1 and ,[11]  a default Windows account with 'superuser' rights." - Dougher (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. -- Oculus Spectatoris disputioe-mail 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense sentence

message: Why are there no dates in the history section?  That just seems weird.  Also, no dates in the version section.  Not very helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.240.8 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No dates?

message: I'm not seeing anything in the article that appears to be worthy of an advertisement.  I have removed the tag from the top of the page; if anyone disagrees, please reply here with what you think needs changing. GSMR (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag 

message: Well, until now, we were all thinking that this text is written from a non-neutral point of view and must be removed. However, we did not pay attention to the fact that the message has a bit of verifiable truth in it. So, I suggest an alternative: Instead of removing the offending message, we replace it with a neutral version. Here is how:
When we say "There is double the chance that IIS is host malware", what is the message? Well, that is easy, look at the main heading that our dear 117.201.*.*/User:DE logics has written: "IIS is serving malware"! This is no doubt an unverifiable POV message. The fact is that:
#According to Google...
#...in the time of research...
#...malware creators preferred to infect or host malware on IIS servers...
#...because IIS computers that failed WGA test could not get updates.
Well, all these are both neutral and verifiable. Why not write these instead? I think it satisfies everyone, right?
Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said double chance, I just put up the statistics as placed by Google. The way you see this as violation of NPOV, I see a lot of other things also as NPOV, why not discuss about those first? Also can you please write your version of IIS serving malware? BTW there're still previous arguments which require responding to (above). DE logics (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say you said it, I said "we", which is hypothetical. But you did explicitly say "IIS serving malware" and this message comes from the statistics! And yes, we can insert the version of IIS on which malware creators serve malware. As for the arguments above, first concentrate on the main issue; secondary issues can stay there for a while. Fleet Command (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This heading was created by me to discuss the topic, as a consequence I've answered your current question and so I think you should first respond to the previous arguments to avoid repeating a single thing. 117.201.80.200 (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative solution to this case

message: IIS Article "However, Microsoft provides security patches to pirated version of Windows." is an opinion
209.48.148.121 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a statement of fact to me, unless your concern is with the use of the term "pirated", which is used by the cited sources. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 209.48.148.121, 8 July 2011 

message: Microsoft started talking about restricting security updates even in Jan 2005, but on July 2005, they implemented the new update method, in which (as Microsoft states) "The authentication process was optional until Monday.  From now on, it will be required for all software updates except security patches." Any doubts? Also Google claims that IIS serving more malware _might_ be cause of security.
As of the bad English, please provide references to what grammar did I violate. DE logics (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was correct, but you put it together to connotate something not in either source. I can connotate the opposite: "IIS servers serve twice as many malware HTTP servers, and Microsoft gives security updates to all IIS servers, even those with pirated Windows; however, owners of those servers tend to not install them." Speaking of bad grammar, who's is not correct - it should be whose, and also "number of malware".Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, we'll add the fact that the web administers tend not to install security patches. That's according to Google. DE logics (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what Google says. However, you mustn't put that together with the fact that Microsoft issues security patches for pirated Windows, because that isn't NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, we'll also do that. DE logics (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

text:  BUT "however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 currently have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability" should also be removed for the same reason. DE logics (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather say that the issue was resolved with version 6.0, which is the sort of thing used on articles like Hyper-V.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're not talking about when the issue was resolved, we're talking about NPOV, and if this's remove, that should also be removed for the same reason. DE logics (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point here is that a NPOV is achieved by removing "however" or "but".Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both are there in the sentence "however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 currently have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability.". BTW figuring out what's NPOV and what's not on basis of grammar is not a good idea. DE logics (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it is. I'm playing with tone here, which really depends on diction. The current version of the sentence implies that IIS is secure because the bad things are "but" 'd out. The version I'm seeking removes that "but"-out.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proving or attempting to prove IIS secure is not NPOV. I suggest removal of the sentence "however, both versions 6.0 and 7.0 currently have no reported issues with this specific vulnerability." as a whole, "Earlier versions" is good enough to notify about the fact that it no longer persists. DE logics (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking about "The issue was not reported in versions 6.0 or later." The issue may still exist according to that sentence, but it may not just as well. The sentence can be interpreted either way.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. The statement "Earlier versions" does not specify IIS 6 or later. Thus it's clear "Newer versions" (opposite to "Earlier versions") are not affected. DE logics (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't be vague though.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This's not vague. If I've state, in 1940s WW2 occurred, it'll be obvious in 2011 WW2 does not persist. DE logics (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Earlier versions" is vague unless you refer to a specific current version. Can you please write out the sentence you imagine?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The versions compromised should be stated instead. DE logics (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be not concise enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so this'll be unification of 2 sentences, and so be more concise. Instead of 'earlier versions', we'll write Versions x and y. DE logics (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would make a run-on sentence if you're going to link every version before 6.0.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pirated Windows and security patches 

message: This article uses copyrighted images (screenshot of MS windows), at least on W7 license terms, it's use is restricted - 
"Icons, Images and Sounds. While the software is running, you may use but not share its
icons, images, sounds, and media. The sample images, sounds and media provided with the
software are for your non-commercial use only." 117.201.82.78 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read our policy on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: In addition to what Jasper Deng said, Microsoft has officially allowed use of its screenshots; see here. Your interpretation of license agreement is wrong. Furthermore, even copyright-protected items may sometimes be used by unauthorized parties as long as the use meets U.S. fair use policy. Fleet Command (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted images used 

message: The section on worldwide usage of IIS is taken from a single measurement at a single point in time, a time which the reader must check the footnote to discover.  I considered just adding that date to the article text, but the bigger question is, should information like that which is always going to vary with time even be quoted in such exact detail in this article?  206.205.52.162 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are referring to the issue of potentially dated statements. In this case, the section must be dated in a manner described in Wikipedia:As of. As for the question of including them, yes, they should be included even if they are prone to be dated at one time or other. An article with appropriately referenced potentially dated statements is better than an article without them. Fleet Command (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: Under the Usage heading, we have this mysterious random collection of words: 
"with it popularity being edged out by nginx hold its strong and gaining second place position."
What???
109.151.89.53 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sentence 

message: There is nothing that states IIS8 in the article? IIS 8 is an integral part of Windows 8, I have tried it out --muqman_52 | talk 04:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about IIS 8? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Internet Information Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infoworld.com/pageone/opinions/petrel/petreltwo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Internet Information Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Internet Information Services →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Relisting comment: Resisting for further participation. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'd say the Indian Information Service is quite notable in India, I am careful changing the primary topic. But I do really dislike the current title because the webserver is usually called IIS. Prefixing it with Microsoft seems reasonable. Comparable to Microsoft Windows, even though the operating system is usually called just Windows. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 May 2024