> Then, someone should correct the code to support passing trust anchors, > allow passing the verify value, and document capabilities and > limitations. (*)
I certainly don't have time to do it, and since I can't agree with the politics behind the whole SSL model, I don't think that I will have time to implement this in the (near) future. Someone else? If not, then do the interested parties agree with this text to be the warning in the package's description field? > "This software does not have any authentication capabilities: it does > not allow you to authenticate your peer, which is a basic requirement > for TLS/SSL to be used securely. You should only use it for testing > purposes and not relaying important information. Be aware that you are > vulnerable to MITM when using it" Security team: is this doc change enough to close the security issue, and handle the modification requests (see (*)) as a wishlist? Thanks for your help and your contribution, Gergely -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
