The discussion centers on whether the Apache HTTP Server vulnerability should be classified as a Remote Code Execution (RCE) given that no public proof-of-concept exists, with users split between those citing industry norms and vendor claims versus those demanding demonstrated exploitability. A secondary debate concerns the role of AI in discovering the bug and the ongoing preference for Apache over Nginx due to features like .htaccess despite performance criticisms.
193 readable replies · Supporting reply 1 · Supporting reply 2 · Supporting reply 3 · Supporting reply 4icing
mod_h2
C2015–2016
icing / mod_h2 · Archived
mod_h2
HTTP/2 module for Apache httpd
3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
255GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
HTTP/2 module for Apache httpd
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by month3 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2015-05-24 05:10:38 UTC to 2016-04-18 19:28:25 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2015 | 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Jun 2015 | 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2015 | 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2015 | 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2015 | 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Oct 2015 | 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2015 | 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2015 | 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2016 | 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2016 | 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2016 | 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesSMsmasher164·Apr 18, 2016Submission
1 points · Open discussionOne proposed mechanism for doing server push is for the application server to send Link: rel=preload headers: https://github.com/icing/mod_h2/issues/38
Once you've got code running on the client then there's significantly less need for server push, as you can initiate requests in a bunch of ways, XHRs or <img> tags etc.
Server push's big win is in getting necessary resources down to the client on the initial page load without waiting for numerous round. As such, you'll see the biggest gains on high latency connections, e.g. mobile.
In The HTTP/2 implementation