Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: > This is why upgrading to TLS within the original protocol is a better > idea, as stated in RFC2817, among others. After all, it wouldn't be > that difficult to write a small routine library that deals with this > kind of upgrade, or so I imagine... Exactly, except that there are those situations in which you don't want anything transmitted in the clear (including the "Host:" header, which could be changed by a man-in-the-middle for DoS at least). Adding a "Destination" field or "Requested service" field (more generic) to the TLS connection protocol would allow TLS based servers to know where the client is trying to go. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x Michael T. Babcock
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3... Edwin Chiu
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x David Lang
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x Norman Mackey
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x Vadim Fedukovich
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3... Michael T. Babcock
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x David Lang
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3... Eric Rescorla
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache... David Schwartz
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Ap... Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost ... Michael T. Babcock
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost ... David Schwartz
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x Paulo Matos
- RE: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3.x Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache 1.3... tomn
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache... Paulo Matos
- Re: SSL + VirtualHost in Apache... Michael T. Babcock