mod_ssl vs. Stronghold 3
My company is looking at going to Stronghold 3, partly because of the commercial aspect. Is it possible to run mod_ssl for commercial purposes now? Does anybody know if their are major differences in the way Stronghold 3 is set up that would prevent us from using mod_ssl instead? Thanks in advance. BoB Woodraska IB Systems Administrator Precision Computer Systems (605) 362-1260 __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_ssl vs. Stronghold 3
Believe me, it is not a very time consuming job to configure and get Apache/OpenSSL/mod_ssl up and running. If an applications guy like me can do it ... and there are benefits, similar to those accruing from learning to drive a car with a standard transmission versus an automatic. As a bonus you always end up with the latest versions of the components. Strnghold is just a commercial repackaging - albeit a clean one - but you STILL have to configure. Presently I oversee an older version of Stronghold as well as secure Apache. Neither has faltered. And ... in tribute to this group, the one problem I did have was related to the lack of a /dev/random device on my o/s. That was promptly diagnosed and a permanent fix provided by the author of prngd for which I remain grateful. Balance about 2/3 hours of your time against the $1000+ for Stronghold. (In Canada with our Cretin Currency, thats more like $1600 and just not acceptable, so my decision was even easier when the second system required configuring!) Its your time and your money, I guess, but the alternative is not a scary one. George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My company is looking at going to Stronghold 3, partly because of the commercial aspect. Is it possible to run mod_ssl for commercial purposes now? Does anybody know if their are major differences in the way Stronghold 3 is set up that would prevent us from using mod_ssl instead? Thanks in advance. BoB Woodraska IB Systems Administrator Precision Computer Systems (605) 362-1260 __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- George Walsh, Managing Director, Travel Seewise Pacific Corp Vancouver Canada __ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: mod_ssl vs. Stronghold 3
Stronghold is now owned by Red Hat and is most definitely NOT free, as I mentioned in the original posting. But Stronghold does use mod_ssl and it really is Apache anyway. Unless the whole process terrifies you, why would you not prefer the support of this community, which from personal experience I can say has been wonderful! George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm.. also, is stronghold free? The price of Apache can't be beat. -- George Walsh, Managing Director, Travel Seewise Pacific Corp Vancouver Canada __ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mod_ssl vs. Stronghold 3
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 10:43:41AM -0500, Woodraska, Robert J. wrote: My company is looking at going to Stronghold 3, partly because of the commercial aspect. Is it possible to run mod_ssl for commercial purposes now? Yes. The issue with the RSA patent ended in September last year. Does anybody know if their are major differences in the way Stronghold 3 is set up that would prevent us from using mod_ssl instead? Thanks in advance. Take a look at http://www.modssl.org/docs/apachecon2001/slide-002-l.html vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager[EMAIL PROTECTED]
