## WASD HTTPd, Year 2000 ... and related issues.

### Disclaimer

> This package is free software provided under the GNU General Public License, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY of any kind. See GNU General Public License. If you are not familiar with this approach to licensing please take the time to read it.

### Constraints

> The WASD package is a fairly extensive collection of software. In addition, it can be dependent on other software packages for functionality (the most significant example is the OpenSSL package). Furthermore, it employs many routines found in VMS system services and run-time libraries. The author does not have the resources to exhaustively assess all aspects.

> Checking for basic compliance has been restricted to the HTTPd image itself. This uses quadword (64 bit) VMS time exclusively. There is no keeping of time as Unix-style, longword (32 bit) integer seconds, although some standard C library routines (e.g.strftime()) are used to format some time strings after conversion from quadword values.

### Testing

> Dates checked:
> - 9th September 1999 (9/9/99 sentinal usage)
> - 1st January 2000 (Y2K "bug")
> - 29th February 2000 (2000 being a leap year)
> - 20th January 2038 (after Unix integer time overflow)

> The test environment was a stand-alone VAX system running VMS 7.1 and Digital TCP/IP 4.1, with WASD HTTPd v6.0 after compilation with DEC C 5.7-004. System time was set forward at the command-line using `$ SET TIME` to approximately ninety seconds before a critical point, allowed to rollover, and then progress until ninety seconds after that point.

> The Y2K.COM DCL procedure was used to step the through the dates in question. Both local and GMT times are checked in this way. This procedure could form the basis for any local checking desired.

> The Y2K.SHTML (Y2K.SHTML) SSI document was used to dynamically display the DCL-level CGI variables and the SSI document strftime() formatted date/times for both local and GMT times during each period.

### Results

> No problems were detected.
> It should be emphasized, this is a very simple check.
> The test version was 6.0, but these results certainly will also apply to 5.n.

Revised: 26th April 1999