Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-06 Thread Christopher Schultz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

James,

On 8/5/20 16:39, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> First, I did a quick SSLLabs scan on the server. That told me that
> "sslEnabledProtocols" in an SSLHostConfig was indeed wrong. And it
> told me that all simulated Chrome handshakes failed, but most other
> simulated handshakes were fine.

If you want something a little more quick-and-dirty than SSLLabs's
test (which is excellent!), you could use this tool:

https://github.com/ChristopherSchultz/ssltest

You will need to compile it; or I can sent you an executable JAR file
if you trust me.

- -chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/
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=HHU/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org



RE: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread jonmcalexander
Good job with those tests and good luck with the real site!


Dream * Excel * Explore * Inspire
Jon McAlexander
Asst Vice President

Middleware Product Engineering
Enterprise CIO | Platform Services | Middleware | Infrastructure Solutions

8080 Cobblestone Rd | Urbandale, IA 50322
MAC: F4469-010
Tel 515-988-2508 | Cell 515-988-2508

jonmcalexan...@wellsfargo.com


This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are 
not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not 
use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any 
information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise 
the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for 
your cooperation.


-Original Message-
From: James H. H. Lampert  
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Tomcat Users List 
Subject: Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with 
Chrome!

Jon Mcalexander wrote:

> Most likely then you need to find a cypher list that is valid for TLSv1.2. 
> Such as below:
> 
> ACCEPTABLE
> 
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
> 
> IDEAL
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256

I came up with a couple of things to try, while I was at lunch.

First, I did a quick SSLLabs scan on the server. That told me that 
"sslEnabledProtocols" in an SSLHostConfig was indeed wrong. And it told me that 
all simulated Chrome handshakes failed, but most other simulated handshakes 
were fine.

Then (directly violating the "change only one variable at a time" 
principle) I set it back to "protocols," *and* cut out the cipher list entirely.

That worked just fine.

The weird part is that so far as I can tell, the cipher list looks
*exactly* like the cipher list in the original Java Keystore version of the 
connector

I compared the cipher lists given in the SSLLabs reports for three
cases: the new connector with the old cipher list, the new connector with no 
cipher list at all, and (using the live version of the server) the old 
connector with the old cipher list, and the results were remarkable:

test, no cipher list
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc004)   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc009)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc00e)   WEAK   128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc023)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc025)   WEAK  128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc029)   WEAK128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02b)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02d) 128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc031)   128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc005)   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00a)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00f)   WEAK   256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc024)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc026)   WEAK  256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc02a)   WEAK256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc02c)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc02e) 256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc032)   256


test, with old cipher list
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc004)   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc009)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc00e)   WEAK   128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc023)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc025)   WEAK  128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc029)   WEAK128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc005)   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00a)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00f)   WEAK   256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc024)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc026)   WEAK  256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 

Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread James H. H. Lampert

Jon Mcalexander wrote:


Most likely then you need to find a cypher list that is valid for TLSv1.2. Such 
as below:

ACCEPTABLE

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256

IDEAL
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256


I came up with a couple of things to try, while I was at lunch.

First, I did a quick SSLLabs scan on the server. That told me that 
"sslEnabledProtocols" in an SSLHostConfig was indeed wrong. And it told 
me that all simulated Chrome handshakes failed, but most other simulated 
handshakes were fine.


Then (directly violating the "change only one variable at a time" 
principle) I set it back to "protocols," *and* cut out the cipher list 
entirely.


That worked just fine.

The weird part is that so far as I can tell, the cipher list looks 
*exactly* like the cipher list in the original Java Keystore version of 
the connector


I compared the cipher lists given in the SSLLabs reports for three 
cases: the new connector with the old cipher list, the new connector 
with no cipher list at all, and (using the live version of the server) 
the old connector with the old cipher list, and the results were remarkable:


test, no cipher list
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc004)   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc009)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	128

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc00e)   WEAK   128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc023)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	128

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc025)   WEAK  128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc029)   WEAK128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02b)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS	128

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02d) 128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc031)   128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc005)   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00a)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	256

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00f)   WEAK   256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc024)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	256

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc026)   WEAK  256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc02a)   WEAK256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc02c)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS	256

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc02e) 256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc032)   256


test, with old cipher list
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc004)   WEAK 128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc009)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	128

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc00e)   WEAK   128
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc023)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	128

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc025)   WEAK  128
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc029)   WEAK128
TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc005)   WEAK 256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00a)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	256

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00f)   WEAK   256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc024)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	256

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc026)   WEAK  256
TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc02a)   WEAK256


original connector, with old cipher list
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc013)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 15360 
bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	128
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc027)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	128

TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35)   WEAK  256
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 15360 
bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	256
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028)   ECDH secp521r1 (eq. 
15360 bits RSA)   FS   WEAK	256


The test with no cipher list produced (I think) five matches with your 
"acceptable" list, two of which were also on your "ideal" list.


The test with the old cipher list on the new connector produced only 12 
of the 18 on the "no cipher list" test, none of which were on either of 
your lists.


And the original connector produced what appears to be a completely 
different list in the report, with nothing in common with the other two, 
or with your lists, and yet it is TLS 1.2-only, and it seems to get 
along just fine with 

RE: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread jonmcalexander


-Original Message-
From: James H. H. Lampert  
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:06 PM
To: Tomcat Users List 
Subject: Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with 
Chrome!

On 8/5/20 10:43 AM, calder wrote:
> certificateVerificationh="none"
> 
> there's one issue (misspelling), though may not be a contributing 
> factor.

> Corrected; no effect.

> Jon McAlexander wrote:
> I believe that
> 
> protocols="TLSv1.2">
> 
> should be
> 
> sslEnabledProtocol="TLSv1.2"


> My understanding of the instructions is that "protocols" is correct for an 
> SSLHostConfig, whereas "sslEnabledProtocols" is correct > for a Connector 
> without an SSLHostConfig. At any rate, I tried "protocols," 
> "sslEnabledProtocol," and "sslEnabledProtocols"; no effect. Firefox still 
> likes it just fine (and so does Safari), but Chrome chokes on > it (and if 
> there's a diagnostic to tell me the gory details of WHY it's choking on it, I 
> don't know where to find it). And both Chrome > > and Firefox like the new LE 
> cert just fine in httpd.

> If it will help, the real domain is
> https://test.wintouch.net

> --
> JHHL

Most likely then you need to find a cypher list that is valid for TLSv1.2. Such 
as below:

ACCEPTABLE

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256

IDEAL
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org



Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread James H. H. Lampert

On 8/5/20 10:43 AM, calder wrote:

certificateVerificationh="none"

there's one issue (misspelling), though may not be a contributing
factor.


Corrected; no effect.

Jon McAlexander wrote:

I believe that

protocols="TLSv1.2">

should be

sslEnabledProtocol="TLSv1.2"



My understanding of the instructions is that "protocols" is correct for
an SSLHostConfig, whereas "sslEnabledProtocols" is correct for a
Connector without an SSLHostConfig. At any rate, I tried "protocols," 
"sslEnabledProtocol," and "sslEnabledProtocols"; no effect. Firefox 
still likes it just fine (and so does Safari), but Chrome chokes on it 
(and if there's a diagnostic to tell me the gory details of WHY it's 
choking on it, I don't know where to find it). And both Chrome and 
Firefox like the new LE cert just fine in httpd.


If it will help, the real domain is
https://test.wintouch.net

--
JHHL


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org



RE: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread jonmcalexander
I believe that 

protocols="TLSv1.2">

should be

sslEnabledProtocol="TLSv1.2"


Dream * Excel * Explore * Inspire
Jon McAlexander
Asst Vice President

Middleware Product Engineering
Enterprise CIO | Platform Services | Middleware | Infrastructure Solutions

8080 Cobblestone Rd | Urbandale, IA 50322
MAC: F4469-010
Tel 515-988-2508 | Cell 515-988-2508

jonmcalexan...@wellsfargo.com


This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are 
not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not 
use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any 
information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise 
the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for 
your cooperation.

-Original Message-
From: calder  
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:43 PM
To: Tomcat Users List 
Subject: Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with 
Chrome!

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 12:22 James H. H. Lampert 
wrote:

> I've now managed to get an experimental copy of our development AWS 
> EC2 instance working with a cert from Let's Encrypt, and I've got 
> Tomcat to launch with a modified connector that uses the LE certs 
> rather than a Java Keystore file.
>
> It looks great from Firefox (except for the still-unanswered riddle of 
> the unwanted Tomcat update), but from Chrome, I get (domain name 
> "changed to protect the innocent"):
>
> > This site can’t provide a secure connection
> >
> > test.foo.net uses an unsupported protocol.
> >
> > ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH
> >
> > Unsupported protocol
> >
> > The client and server don't support a common SSL protocol version or
> cipher suite.
>
> The modified connector looks like this:
>
>  protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol"
> compression="on" compressionMinSize="2048"
> noCompressionUserAgents="gozilla, traviata"
>
>
> compressableMimeType="text/html,text/xml,text/plain,text/css,text/javascript,text/json,application/x-javascript,application/javascript,application/json"
> maxThreads="1000" socket.appReadBufSize="1024"
> socket.appWriteBufSize="1024" bufferSize="1024" SSLEnabled="true"
> scheme="https" secure="true">
> 
> ciphers="TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AE
> S_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,
>
>
> TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_S
> HA,TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,
>
>
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_S
> HA,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,
>
>
> TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA2
> 56,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,
>
>
> TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_
> SHA,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,
>
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA"
>



  certificateVerificationh="none"


there's one issue (misspelling), though may not be a contributing factor.



sslProtocol="TLS"
> protocols="TLSv1.2">
>certificateFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.crt"
> certificateKeyFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.key"
>
> certificateChainFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.issuer.crt"/>
>
>  
>
>
> Can anybody shed any light on what I did wrong?
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org



Re: Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread calder
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020, 12:22 James H. H. Lampert 
wrote:

> I've now managed to get an experimental copy of our development AWS EC2
> instance working with a cert from Let's Encrypt, and I've got Tomcat to
> launch with a modified connector that uses the LE certs rather than a
> Java Keystore file.
>
> It looks great from Firefox (except for the still-unanswered riddle of
> the unwanted Tomcat update), but from Chrome, I get (domain name
> "changed to protect the innocent"):
>
> > This site can’t provide a secure connection
> >
> > test.foo.net uses an unsupported protocol.
> >
> > ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH
> >
> > Unsupported protocol
> >
> > The client and server don't support a common SSL protocol version or
> cipher suite.
>
> The modified connector looks like this:
>
>  protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol"
> compression="on" compressionMinSize="2048"
> noCompressionUserAgents="gozilla, traviata"
>
>
> compressableMimeType="text/html,text/xml,text/plain,text/css,text/javascript,text/json,application/x-javascript,application/javascript,application/json"
> maxThreads="1000" socket.appReadBufSize="1024"
> socket.appWriteBufSize="1024" bufferSize="1024" SSLEnabled="true"
> scheme="https" secure="true">
> 
> ciphers="TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,
>
>
> TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,
>
>
> TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,
>
>
> TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,
>
>
> TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,
>
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA"
>



  certificateVerificationh="none"


there's one issue (misspelling), though may not be a contributing factor.



sslProtocol="TLS"
> protocols="TLSv1.2">
>certificateFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.crt"
> certificateKeyFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.key"
>
> certificateChainFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.issuer.crt"/>
>
>  
>
>
> Can anybody shed any light on what I did wrong?
>


Connector works fine with Firefox, but not on speaking terms with Chrome!

2020-08-05 Thread James H. H. Lampert

I've now managed to get an experimental copy of our development AWS EC2
instance working with a cert from Let's Encrypt, and I've got Tomcat to
launch with a modified connector that uses the LE certs rather than a
Java Keystore file.

It looks great from Firefox (except for the still-unanswered riddle of
the unwanted Tomcat update), but from Chrome, I get (domain name 
"changed to protect the innocent"):



This site can’t provide a secure connection

test.foo.net uses an unsupported protocol.

ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH

Unsupported protocol

The client and server don't support a common SSL protocol version or cipher 
suite.


The modified connector looks like this:

protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11NioProtocol"
   compression="on" compressionMinSize="2048" 
noCompressionUserAgents="gozilla, traviata"


compressableMimeType="text/html,text/xml,text/plain,text/css,text/javascript,text/json,application/x-javascript,application/javascript,application/json"
   maxThreads="1000" socket.appReadBufSize="1024" 
socket.appWriteBufSize="1024" bufferSize="1024" SSLEnabled="true" 
scheme="https" secure="true">
   ciphers="TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,


TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256,TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA,TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384,

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA"
 certificateVerificationh="none" sslProtocol="TLS" 
protocols="TLSv1.2">
 certificateFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.crt" 
certificateKeyFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.key"


certificateChainFile="/etc/tomcat8/test.foo.net.issuer.crt"/>
  



Can anybody shed any light on what I did wrong?

--
James H. H. Lampert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org