I just noticed with the mass of vulnerability reports, we threw in
just a blanket thank you to the reporters for 2.0.55, and should go
back and adjust that for posterity, e.g. as we had in this version;
https://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd/httpd/dist/Announcement2.txt?rev=105304&view=markup
On 4/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:> Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply> totaled if trying as Win64.Yup, mostly hopeless back then.> Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO.
> Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea..
On 4/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO.> Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...Couple observations; pcre is quite LP64 dirty; this is observed underdarwin x686 and win64. so don't necessarily expect
2.2.1 to build win64clean yet
I do not have the issue (now 3 reports at the Apachelounge),
so I cannot give more info, here it was working fine.
I build now with openssl 0.9.8b instead of 0.9.8a.
And suprise, it is working now at that guys.
I come back here when there are still issues.
Steffen
- Original Message -
Bart,
How about we tag-team on this one :-) I may not be able to create a
patch to fix it, but I can certainly fill out a web form. I submitted
this as bug ID #39245 along with the copying the email exchanges we've
had on the list. You might want to add yourself to the cc for this.
Folks, I'm
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply
totaled if trying as Win64.
Yup, mostly hopeless back then.
Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO.
Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...
Couple observations; pcre is quite LP64 dirty; this i
Joost de Heer wrote:
Steffen wrote:
So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues.
Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine.
The report is:
error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl).
c005 is 'access violation'.
Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to
Steffen wrote:
So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues.
Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine.
The report is:
error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl).
c005 is 'access violation'.
Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a
server
cert
Strange my SSL vhosts works fine.Don't get any errors.On 4/7/06, Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues.Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine.
The report is:error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl).c005 is 'access violation'.Using F
Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply totaled if trying as Win64.Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO.Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...I noted that i didn't have any SDK's installed because if you use the free edition of
VC.net 2005 you need Platform SD
So far I have two reports that mod_ssl is given issues.
Strange, I tried it on three XP boxes and all is fine.
The report is:
error c005 at 6FD0F220 (mod_ssl).
c005 is 'access violation'.
Using FileMon, this appears to get triggered when trying to read in a server
certificate. I removed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: mjc
Date: Fri Apr 7 02:58:47 2006
New Revision: 392234
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=392234&view=rev
Log:
Revert revision 392230. wrowe correctly points out that
cve-2005-2088 didn't affect apache 1.3, and indeed I've mailed
people that thought it di
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Compiler: Visual Studio .net 2005 Pro (out of box, no aditianal SDK's)
FWIW, I'm focused on the Win64 fixes on trunk, backporting compatible
changes to 2.2, and ignoring 2.0 for Win64.
Of course you don't need any SDK's - they are included. For VS 6.0 users
their heade
> 1.3 was UNAFFECTED
Yes, indeed it was me that insisted that this didn't affect 1.3, I'll
revert it :)
Cheers, Mark
WHY?
1.3 was UNAFFECTED by the original report, because chunking is NOT SUPPORTED.
The only reason I insisted on fixing it is that there were other similar
issues w.r.t. other handlers. I thought you were the one who insisted
that my patch didn't address -2088?
It'
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wro
> Done.>> I build against APR and APR-util 1.3.0 and the Perl scripts working now.> > Also no build error apu_version anymore.> > All tests passed here, including mod_perl and other common mods.
> > Steffen> > http://www.apachelounge.comYeah it builds fine with APR and APR-util trunk, nothing was
16 matches
Mail list logo
