> I recommend that you use "mhttpd --mg" as the alternative for running "mhttpd -p" behind an apache
> proxy. Using "mhttpd -p" (no HTTPS/SSL) on an internet-connected machine is insecure and should not be
> done. (private network such as 192.168.x.y addresses is okey for now, I guess).
Finally reading through your documentation in detail [1,2]. I find that I don't understand this recommendation to use secure mongoose
instead of putting mhttpd behind an apache proxy. I think that it is nice to have secure mhttpd with mongoose as an option, but your
documentation seems to imply that mhttpd-mongoose is much better than mhttpd-behind-apache and that the latter solution is strongly
Perhaps I am not understanding the benefits of the new system. In reference  you say "If this is not possible, somewhat better security
for HTTP is gained by using a password protected SSL (https) proxy." This seems to imply that the security of mhttpd-mongoose is better
than the security of mhttpd-behind-apache. Is that correct? I thought that they provided similar security (assuming you follow
recommended configurations for APACHE).
Setting up apache is trivial and it seems that mhttpd-behind-apache has other advantages, like being able to put other web resources
(ganglia, cameras, elog, etc) behind the same secure server. Also you can start to build complicated custom pages that are served directly
from apache and just use MIDAS AJAX calls. I was imagining slowly moving away from using mhttpd at all and just having html/js/css
resources served up by apache.
So, unless I'm missing something, at this point I would continue to recommend people use mhttpd-behind-apache and I'd suggest this be
presented as an equally valid option in the documentation.