Re: Certificate questions...
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:10:42PM -0800, EKR wrote: Karl Denninger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I understand that, but it seems that people (including Thawte, Microslug and Nutscrape) are missing the point. There are to separate things that secure web servers do. 1. Authenticate who you're talking to, so that when you engage in commerce you have some indication that the merchant you think you're dealing with is really who you're dealing with. 2. Encrypt the data so that it cannot be intercepted between the sending and receiving machines. These are NOT the same function, and needing one of them does not imply needing the other. This is incorrect. Without authentication of the merchant's identity, you're subject to a variety of active attacks where the attacker substitutes his key for the merchant's. You can only have encryption without endpoint authentication if your threat model does not include active attack. Yet, in today's world, you cannot have one without the other, which means that to get EITHER you must pay someone. Contrast this with PGP for email, in which I can publish a public key and once you obtain it you're able to receive an encrypted communication from me and decode the traffic. My generation of that key pair does not require that it be "certified" by any third party. The generation, no. However, in order for people sending you mail to be sure that they are not subject to active key substitution attacks, they key pair does need to be securely bound to the recipient. Unless you're prepared to exchange keys with all of your correcpondents out of band, you do need third party key certification. PGP accomplishes this using key signing rather than certificates per se, but it's an analagous concept. Understood. However, the concept that a PERSON needs to pay upwards of $100 to get a key by which they can have a SSL connection work from a web server is insane. Why are there no public CAs - much like the public keyrings for PGP? Why does Nutscrape and Microslug only ship with COMMERCIAL, and EXPENSIVE, CAs loaded? -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Web: http://childrens-justice.org Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for a plan to do exactly that! __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Certificate questions...
Absolutely. I wonder if the DOJ might be interested in this -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Web: http://childrens-justice.org Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for a plan to do exactly that! On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 05:29:23PM -0500, Eric Moore wrote: It seems there is restraint of trade since only a few 'selected' companies can get on the CA root of IE and Navigator. To pay USD 300 every couple of years to prove you exist is silly. The price of domaine registration is coming down, why not certs since there is more e-commerce? In the U.S. the cert only proves you have a DUNS number, a phone number, and a fax'd copy of a state registration. Every scam artist has those. EM Karl Denninger wrote: Well, I understand that, but it seems that people (including Thawte, Microslug and Nutscrape) are missing the point. There are to separate things that secure web servers do. 1. Authenticate who you're talking to, so that when you engage in commerce you have some indication that the merchant you think you're dealing with is really who you're dealing with. 2. Encrypt the data so that it cannot be intercepted between the sending and receiving machines. These are NOT the same function, and needing one of them does not imply needing the other. Yet, in today's world, you cannot have one without the other, which means that to get EITHER you must pay someone. Contrast this with PGP for email, in which I can publish a public key and once you obtain it you're able to receive an encrypted communication from me and decode the traffic. My generation of that key pair does not require that it be "certified" by any third party. --- Eric Moore Miami, Florida __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Certificate questions...
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 12:23:33AM +0100, Jan Meijer wrote: Hi Karl, Whilst taking the risk to look like someone from Microshot, Netscape or the others some comment on your pleads for clarity. There are to separate things that secure web servers do. 1. Authenticate who you're talking to, so that when you engage in commerce you have some indication that the merchant you think you're dealing with is really who you're dealing with. 2. Encrypt the data so that it cannot be intercepted between the sending and receiving machines. True. Crypto allows for two other quite basic functions: non-repudiation and integrity. You only mentioned authenticity and confendiatlity. Well, confidentiality implies integrity, in that a tampered data stream won't decode. Public key crypto with a known certification on the public key provides non-repudiation (assuming the private key has not been compromised) These are NOT the same function, and needing one of them does not imply needing the other. True Yep. Yet, in today's world, you cannot have one without the other, which means that to get EITHER you must pay someone. The pay part is untrue. If you really don't care about authenticity but only are interested in confidentiality of your datastream (if you cannot verify the authenticity of the entities on either side of your datastream I think you're quite vulnerable for loosing your confidentiality, but that's your choice) you can just generate your own certificate. What is true is that those stupid browser applications refuse to see key generation and the *possible* certification as different steps. With openssl of course this is possible. Yep. Contrast this with PGP for email, in which I can publish a public key and once you obtain it you're able to receive an encrypted communication from me and decode the traffic. My generation of that key pair does not require that it be "certified" by any third party. I hope you made some typo here. You do not use the thing conceptually referred to as "public key" to decode encrypted traffic/messages. That's what the private thingie is for. The public part is for signature verification (ie verifying the private part has been used to encrypt a piece of data). Well, yes and no. If I want to send you a message I can do several things with it: 1. I can encrypt it with your PUBLIC key. Once I do that I cannot recover the message. Only YOU can recover it, by using the private key, which in theory at least only you have. This provides both confidentiality and data integrity, as the message will not decode if tampered with. It does NOT prove that I authored the message though. 2. I can SIGN it with my PRIVATE key. That is basically just taking a hash seeded with my private key and appending same. This provides non-repudiation and data integrity, as the message will not verify if tampered with, and if it DOES verify against the public key then you know the private key was used to sign it with certainty. 3. I can sign the message with my private key and then encrypt it with your public key. NOW I have a message that has all the benefits of (1) and (2) with one further benefit - only *YOU* can determine the message's origin! Without your private key the signature cannot be read, thus, nobody but you can prove that I sent it. Now the problem here is that if the private key in question is compromised then you can sign messages that are from someone else (the person who's key you have) and you can also read messages sent to someone else (the person who's key you have). But that SAME risk exists with certificates, in that if I get ahold of the private key for your web server (and either break the PEM passphrase or if you foolishly unlock it) I can now do the same thing. Problem with your PGP schema is that I can publish my public key on the keyserver (lets say the keys.pgpi.net which I trust a lot ;), you can get it there and use it to crypt data for me. Essential problem here: how do you know that the key you're using is mine and not from someone claiming to be me (by entering *my* emailaddress and name during key generation)? Using signatures -- signature=certificate. Simple: If I use a "spoofed" key you can't read the output. Since I have to DELIVER the message to you, if you get something that doesn't decode, you know the sender got a "bad" public key from somewhere and its time for you to have a discussion with the sender and find out where they got the key from. The first time you get an undecodable message you know someone has done this. Second, if I get your key from the PGP keyring, I can look at who has vouched for you (signed your key). If there's nothing
Re: Certificate questions...
Karl Denninger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:10:42PM -0800, EKR wrote: The generation, no. However, in order for people sending you mail to be sure that they are not subject to active key substitution attacks, they key pair does need to be securely bound to the recipient. Unless you're prepared to exchange keys with all of your correcpondents out of band, you do need third party key certification. PGP accomplishes this using key signing rather than certificates per se, but it's an analagous concept. Understood. However, the concept that a PERSON needs to pay upwards of $100 to get a key by which they can have a SSL connection work from a web server is insane. Why are there no public CAs - much like the public keyrings for PGP? Why does Nutscrape and Microslug only ship with COMMERCIAL, and EXPENSIVE, CAs loaded? I can't speak for the rationales behind MS or NSCP's policies, but I don't think this is as simple as you make it out to be. The issue is maintaining reference integrity for HTTPS transactions. The client has in hand a URL of the form https://www.example.com/. When he connects to the server, the server presents his certificate. This certificate should have the identity "www.example.com" (in the CN field). If it doesn't, then the browser will pop up a dialog complaining about this. The reason for this check is (once again) to prevent active substitution attacks whereby someone with a legitimate certificate for a different e.g. "www.attacker.com" poses as the server. In order for this procedure to work correctly, the CAs must enforce the binding between domain name and identity in certificate. If they don't, then active attacks are possible. Thus, any CA trusted by MS or NSCP must agree to these rules. But enforcing them is irritating and expensive. I don't know of any non-commercial CA who promises to do so. Your comparison to PGP keyservers really isn't apt. PGP keyservers are more like LDAP directories than CAs. The provider of the keyserver doesn't vouch for the keys, he simply serves them. The signatures on the keys are (usually) those of individuals. -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]] PureTLS - free SSLv3/TLS software for Java http://www.rtfm.com/puretls/ __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compiling apache+mod_ssl+php3 in UK/Europe ... RedHat 6.1?
hello ... The whole thing ... apache 1.3.12, the newest mod_ssl, newest mod_perl and php compiled nicely for me in Red Hat 5.2. The only bug I had was the php/database support ... but this list is not about that :-)) Question: should all this compile out of the box on a Red Hat 6.1 box as well, like on my Red Hat 5.2 box? I really hope so ... I dread using the rpm's. tim p.s. my rh box -- www.priroda.xs4all.nl On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -, Andy Hughes wrote: Hello all, I've been trying without success to build an apache server that incorporates both mod_ssl and php. I am getting stuck and repeatedly trip up on detail - if anyone has built this within the UK, with all the UK-specific settings I would greatly appreciate any guidance! If anyone can help here is my sorry tale ... this is a bit long so please accept my apologies in advance. Hardware/OS: RedHat Linux 6.1 on an HP E60 server. Using the following source trees: /usr/src/apache_1.3.12 /usr/src/mm-1.0.12 /usr/src/mod_ssl-2.6.1-1.3.12 /usr/src/openssl-0.9.5 /usr/src/php-3.0.15 In addition I have MySQL 3.22.32 installed and working in /usr/local/mysql. Combining advice from the mod_ssl, openssl and php documentation I tried several times to do the various builds. The last attempt (last week, it's taken me this long to calm down :-) which got closest gave me the following error: I'm mostly there but towards the end when "make"-ing Apache I get: === src/modules/standard === src/modules/ssl gcc -c -I../../os/unix -I../../include -DLINUX=2 -DMOD_SSL=206101 -DUSE_HSREG EX -DEAPI -DUSE_EXPAT -I../../lib/expat-lite `../../apaci` -fpic -DSHARED_MODULE -DSSL_COMPAT -DSSL_USE_SDBM -I/usr/local/ssl/include -DMOD_SSL_VERSION=\"2.6.1\ " mod_ssl.c mv mod_ssl.o mod_ssl.lo In file included from /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/pem.h:66, from /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/ssl.h:147, from mod_ssl.h:96, from mod_ssl.c:65: /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl/evp.h:97: openssl/idea.h: No such file or directory make[4]: *** [mod_ssl.lo] Error 1 make[3]: *** [all] Error 1 make[2]: *** [subdirs] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/apache_1.3.12/src' make[1]: *** [build-std] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/apache_1.3.12' make: *** [build] Error 2 Which is because (in Europe) we apparently need to disable idea encryption. During the openssl build I specified no-idea, which is I guess the root cause of this problem. Perusing the various files and docs I cannot find a reference to how to fix this but I can think of various ways to get around this. 1. Why is idea turned off in Europe ? Is it legal to compile it in ? 2. Would it be OK to simply copy the missing file (idea.h) and make regardless ? Again, would this be legal/sound ? 3. Are there any directives I need to add (to an already quite substantial list of options!) to avoid this problem ? Any comments, thoughts, experiences etc. gratefully received. If you want a full transcript of the commands I used I will post my best recollection of them (as I say I tried various combinations and will document the one that _works_ and, if anyone is interested, post it here :-). Pretty much everything was installed in /usr/local/... TIA for your time and trouble, cheers, Andy. __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache+mod-ssl+PHP server not accepting connections - I'm an idiot!!
Okie, Slap me around and call me an idiot!! After a careful look through my httpd.conf I discovered that Apache was listening on port 8080 (http) and 8443 (https). After changing this to the standard ports 80 (http) and 443 (https) it is now accepting connections through http. However I am still having problems with the https section, if I try https://phaderunner.demon.co.uk:443/ on Netscape it just sits there forever waiting for a reply, if on the server I type: openssl s_client -connect phaderunner.demon.co.uk:443 -state -debug I get the output: CONNECTED(0004) SSL_connect:before/connect initialization write to 08105D80 [08105DC8] (103 bytes = 103 (0x67)) - 80 65 01 03 01 00 3c 00-00 00 20 00 00 16 00 00 .e... . 0010 - 13 00 00 0a 00 00 05 00-00 04 00 00 15 00 00 12 0020 - 00 00 09 07 00 c0 03 00-80 01 00 80 08 00 80 06 0030 - 00 40 00 00 14 00 00 11-00 00 08 00 00 06 00 00 .@.. 0040 - 03 04 00 80 02 00 80 ec-43 38 e2 6e b2 59 23 fc C8.n.Y#. 0050 - 41 eb 97 99 78 da 9e b3-ed 29 97 b3 1d 55 2a f3 A...x)...U*. 0060 - 89 5a 60 0a 4c 79 ed .Z`.Ly. SSL_connect:SSLv2/v3 write client hello A read from 08105D80 [0810B328] (7 bytes = 7 (0x7)) - 3c 21 44 4f 43 54 59 !DOCTY SSL_connect:error in SSLv2/v3 read server hello A 727:error:140770FC:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:unknown protocol:s23_clnt.c:450: Does anyone know what this is and how to fix it? I would really appreciate any assistance. Thanks in advance, Robin -- SNIP huge sig... __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Certificate questions...
-Original Message- From: Karl Denninger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 March 2000 15:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Certificate questions... Hi John, On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:06:19AM -, Airey, John wrote: Assuming we are talking about Thawte's server test certificates, they are only for use for one month. Using them helps you to understand how to install a real certificate without running the risk of destroying it (a very real risk with NT!) Not really true. You can set the validity up to 365 days. Obviously Thawte have changed their policy on test certificates then. I haven't used one for a while but they are a useful test of their certificate issuing procedure without running the risk of losing money because you get your csr wrong. Just to clarify, with Windows NT it is possible to install a certificate and private key without actually having a copy of them on disk, AFAIK (although it would be foolish not to keep a backup, wouldn't it?). If you need to reinstall NT, then you've lost them! Like I said, if this isn't a public site you can create your own. All a certificate does is prove who you are, but if you are only securing data for internal use, you hopefully know who you are anyway. This reminds me of a joke. Descartes was in a restaurant having a meal. The waiter asks him "would you like to see the wine list, Sir?". He replies "I think not" and promptly vanishes. (I never said it was a funny joke). John __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASN1 : Bad tag Error with my own generated certificate
[info] Init: Requesting pass phrase via builtin terminal dialog [error] Init: Private key not found (OpenSSL library error follows) The openssl error messages could be a little less vague every now and then, but basically it states your private key cannot be found. I can't look into your config right now, but most of the time it is a. you did not put your private key where you told mod_ssl it would be. b. you do not have a private key somehow, which reverts back to problem a. Make sure you have in your :443 server config both: -the location of your site public key (certificate) -the location of your site private key -the location of your ca certificate and all intermediate certs -made the hashes in the ca cert directory in case you use the CAPATH directive. Jan -- alive=true __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache+mod-ssl+PHP server not accepting connections - I'm an idiot!!
Robin, | read from 08105D80 [0810B328] (7 bytes = 7 (0x7)) | - 3c 21 44 4f 43 54 59 !DOCTY Looks like your server speaks plaintext on port 443. Have you started the server with apachectl startssl? Did it even ask you for a passphrase at startup? Later, Kos -- __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, RSE not at ApacheCon 2000
Sorry, I'll be not attending ApacheCon 2000 in Orlando this week because of disease. This means the proposed session "Security Solutions with SSL" on Friday has to be cancelled. Those of us who attend ApacheCon and wanted to visit my session should be not too much disappointed, please. Yours, Ralf S. Engelschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.engelschall.com __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_ssl as SSL client
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000, Gsandtner Michael wrote: My situation: browser -https- proxy -https- SSL Server A RewriteRule on proxy (mod_ssl+mod_proxy): RewriteRule ^/(.*) https://server.intern/$1 [P] mod_proxy/mod_ssl acts as a SSL client. How I can control on proxy , whether the connected SSL server (in the example server.intern) is trusted or not ? mod_ssl on proxy seems to accept any (not expired) certificate from server.intern, not doing the checks a browser does, as they are - "Certifcate Subject CN" identical to "server name" from URL - a trusted CA in the chain of certificate presented by server (SSLCACertificatePath seems only to effect Client authentication) For this backend server authentication you need the latest mod_ssl 2.6 and build the enhanced HTTPS proxy support by using --enable-rule=SSL_EXPERIMENTAL. Then you've a few additional SSLProxy directives available which are similar to SSL for the HTTPS proxy situation and which can be used for verifying the backend server. Ralf S. Engelschall [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.engelschall.com __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_ssl problems with MSIE
[Jason Terry] I am running Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21 PHP/3.0.14 mod_ssl/2.5.0 OpenSSL/0.9.4 I have this line in my http.conf SetEnvIf User-Agent ".*MSIE.*" nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown However my mod_ssl server still has problems connecting with MSIE and I can find absolutely no cause in my logs. I have had administration ability for several different Linux boxes, and to my knowledge all of them have had this problem. And it has been happening for many months. Does anyone have any idea what may be causing MSIE to not connect. It has got to be something with only MSIE as I am an avid Netscape user and I have NEVER seen this problem on any of these servers when using Netscape. However if I switch to MSIE I do see the rare occurance. Any ideas, on how to track the problem, or fix it would be VERY much appreciated. Did this get resolved? I am having the same problems, currently running: Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21 mod_ssl/2.6.2 OpenSSL/0.9.5 mod_fastcgi/2.2.2 Netscape and Opera works perfectly, MSIE does not even leave an entry in the log. I also have the SetEnvIf-thingie from the FAQ. -- - Terje [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mod_ssl as SSL client
Gsandtner Michael wrote: How I can control on proxy , whether the connected SSL server (in the example server.intern) is trusted or not ? Well, you might want to try: o SSLProxyVerify on|off (whether to verify the remote certificate) o SSLProxyVerifyDepth N (maximum certificate verification depth) o SSLProxyCACertificateFile /path/to/file (file containing server certificates) o SSLProxyCACertificatePath /path/to/dir (directory containing server certificates) (Snipped from the 2.6.0 Announcement). vh Mads Toftum, QDPH --- I wonder if this will be delivered according to RFC 1149 or RFC 2549. __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Certificate questions...
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 09:48:47AM -, Airey, John wrote: -Original Message- From: Karl Denninger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 March 2000 15:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Certificate questions... Hi John, On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:06:19AM -, Airey, John wrote: Assuming we are talking about Thawte's server test certificates, they are only for use for one month. Using them helps you to understand how to install a real certificate without running the risk of destroying it (a very real risk with NT!) Not really true. You can set the validity up to 365 days. Obviously Thawte have changed their policy on test certificates then. I haven't used one for a while but they are a useful test of their certificate issuing procedure without running the risk of losing money because you get your csr wrong. Just to clarify, with Windows NT it is possible to install a certificate and private key without actually having a copy of them on disk, AFAIK (although it would be foolish not to keep a backup, wouldn't it?). If you need to reinstall NT, then you've lost them! Like I said, if this isn't a public site you can create your own. All a certificate does is prove who you are, but if you are only securing data for internal use, you hopefully know who you are anyway. Well, I understand that, but it seems that people (including Thawte, Microslug and Nutscrape) are missing the point. There are to separate things that secure web servers do. 1. Authenticate who you're talking to, so that when you engage in commerce you have some indication that the merchant you think you're dealing with is really who you're dealing with. 2. Encrypt the data so that it cannot be intercepted between the sending and receiving machines. These are NOT the same function, and needing one of them does not imply needing the other. Yet, in today's world, you cannot have one without the other, which means that to get EITHER you must pay someone. Contrast this with PGP for email, in which I can publish a public key and once you obtain it you're able to receive an encrypted communication from me and decode the traffic. My generation of that key pair does not require that it be "certified" by any third party. -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Web: http://childrens-justice.org Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for a plan to do exactly that! __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Certificate questions...
Karl Denninger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I understand that, but it seems that people (including Thawte, Microslug and Nutscrape) are missing the point. There are to separate things that secure web servers do. 1.Authenticate who you're talking to, so that when you engage in commerce you have some indication that the merchant you think you're dealing with is really who you're dealing with. 2.Encrypt the data so that it cannot be intercepted between the sending and receiving machines. These are NOT the same function, and needing one of them does not imply needing the other. This is incorrect. Without authentication of the merchant's identity, you're subject to a variety of active attacks where the attacker substitutes his key for the merchant's. You can only have encryption without endpoint authentication if your threat model does not include active attack. Yet, in today's world, you cannot have one without the other, which means that to get EITHER you must pay someone. Contrast this with PGP for email, in which I can publish a public key and once you obtain it you're able to receive an encrypted communication from me and decode the traffic. My generation of that key pair does not require that it be "certified" by any third party. The generation, no. However, in order for people sending you mail to be sure that they are not subject to active key substitution attacks, they key pair does need to be securely bound to the recipient. Unless you're prepared to exchange keys with all of your correcpondents out of band, you do need third party key certification. PGP accomplishes this using key signing rather than certificates per se, but it's an analagous concept. -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]] PureTLS - free SSLv3/TLS software for Java http://www.rtfm.com/puretls/ __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Certificate questions...
It seems there is restraint of trade since only a few 'selected' companies can get on the CA root of IE and Navigator. To pay USD 300 every couple of years to prove you exist is silly. The price of domaine registration is coming down, why not certs since there is more e-commerce? In the U.S. the cert only proves you have a DUNS number, a phone number, and a fax'd copy of a state registration. Every scam artist has those. EM Karl Denninger wrote: Well, I understand that, but it seems that people (including Thawte, Microslug and Nutscrape) are missing the point. There are to separate things that secure web servers do. 1. Authenticate who you're talking to, so that when you engage in commerce you have some indication that the merchant you think you're dealing with is really who you're dealing with. 2. Encrypt the data so that it cannot be intercepted between the sending and receiving machines. These are NOT the same function, and needing one of them does not imply needing the other. Yet, in today's world, you cannot have one without the other, which means that to get EITHER you must pay someone. Contrast this with PGP for email, in which I can publish a public key and once you obtain it you're able to receive an encrypted communication from me and decode the traffic. My generation of that key pair does not require that it be "certified" by any third party. --- Eric Moore Miami, Florida __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problem with Global Server ID - SGC
Hi ! I am facing a problem while configuring Global server certificate - SGC support ! 1 I got a verisign Global Serv ID(for SGC) : gsid.crt 2 specified the gsid.crt under SSLCertificateFile 3 specified the key file 4 Got the intermediate verisign CA root(gsid_ca.crt) and specified the same under SSLCertificateChainFile. 5 started apache: apachectl startssl I installed 4.08 netscape browser with SCG support. Selected the cipher - "RC4 encryption with a 128-bit key and an MD5 MAC (When permitted)" ! I unselected every other cipher from the browser.i expected a step-up. The browser gave an error when connecting to apache server. "You cannot connect to an encrypted website because SSL has been disabled. you can enable SSL from security-navigator option...etc" Whereas if i select a cipher "RC4 encryption with a 40-bit key and an MD5 MAC" then the connection goes thru fine. This means still the stepup doesnt work! The ssl_engine_log file says... ... OpenSSL: read 0/7 bytes from BIO#00159AF0 [mem:00175048] (BIO dump follows) +---+ +---+ Spurious SSL handshake interrupt[Hint: Usually one of those OpenSSL confusions] The verisign customer support says "install Intermediate Cert first and then the SGC(Globas server) cert later.." but i could not understand how you can do that..afterall, if i dont specify the SSLcertificateFile when the SSLEngine is ON i wont be able to start the server at all. Can someone help me on this ? Thanks a lot Vijay __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with Global Server ID - SGC
In order for the stepup to work, you have to allow 40-bit encryption so it can figure out that it needs to step it up. Regards, -Mat --- Mat Butler, Winged Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPASTIC Web Engineer SPASTIC Server Administrator Begin FurryCode v1.3 FCWw5amrsw A- C+ D H+++ M+[servercoder] P+ R++ T+++ W Z++ Sm++ RLCT/M*/LW* a cl/u/v+ !d e- f h++ iwf+++ j p-+ sm++ End FurryCode v1.3 On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, vijay karthik wrote: Hi ! I am facing a problem while configuring Global server certificate - SGC support ! 1 I got a verisign Global Serv ID(for SGC) : gsid.crt 2 specified the gsid.crt under SSLCertificateFile 3 specified the key file 4 Got the intermediate verisign CA root(gsid_ca.crt) and specified the same under SSLCertificateChainFile. 5 started apache: apachectl startssl I installed 4.08 netscape browser with SCG support. Selected the cipher - "RC4 encryption with a 128-bit key and an MD5 MAC (When permitted)" ! I unselected every other cipher from the browser.i expected a step-up. The browser gave an error when connecting to apache server. "You cannot connect to an encrypted website because SSL has been disabled. you can enable SSL from security-navigator option...etc" Whereas if i select a cipher "RC4 encryption with a 40-bit key and an MD5 MAC" then the connection goes thru fine. This means still the stepup doesnt work! The ssl_engine_log file says... ... OpenSSL: read 0/7 bytes from BIO#00159AF0 [mem:00175048] (BIO dump follows) +---+ +---+ Spurious SSL handshake interrupt[Hint: Usually one of those OpenSSL confusions] The verisign customer support says "install Intermediate Cert first and then the SGC(Globas server) cert later.." but i could not understand how you can do that..afterall, if i dont specify the SSLcertificateFile when the SSLEngine is ON i wont be able to start the server at all. Can someone help me on this ? Thanks a lot Vijay __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
