RE: Repetitive warnings on ErrorLogs.

2009-09-08 Thread Jaysingh Samuel
Hi soren, Thanks for useful information on this. We are not spawning children from the pre/post config, but still i could see the long lost child alerts. This alerts is coming only on graceful restart(SIGUSR) of the server and not on restart on the server. When i did debug on the worker

Re: Repetitive warnings on ErrorLogs.

2009-09-08 Thread Sorin Manolache
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 13:54, Jaysingh Samuel jayasingh.sam...@hotmail.comwrote: Hi soren, Thanks for useful information on this. We are not spawning children from the pre/post config, but still i could see the long lost child alerts. This alerts is coming only on graceful restart(SIGUSR)

Re: svn commit: r811806 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES docs/man/ab.8 support/ab.c

2009-09-08 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jeff Barnes wrote: I obsoleted the .8 file and attached the svn diff for the xml file. Should the ab.8 file be removed from svn if it gets overwritten with each documentation generation? No moreso than the .html files, all generated from xml. We don't expect typical developers to install

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Graham Leggett
Udo Rader wrote: I am just trying to set up a X.509 client certificates + LDAP based authorizaton system. I've setup all pieces best to my knowledge (mod_ssl, mod_auth_basic, mod_auth_ldap), but I am still having problems to connect to our LDAP server because SSLOption FakeBasicAuth still

Re: mod_reqtimeout: mitigating against slowloris-style attack (different approach)

2009-09-08 Thread Rainer Jung
On 06.09.2009 22:38, Stefan Fritsch wrote: On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote: I guess reqtimeout_after_body also needs to be updated to the assert / do nothing if not configured logic like reqtimeout_after_headers Thanks, I missed that. I fixed it and also added

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Udo Rader
Eric Covener wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Udo Raderlist...@bestsolution.at wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth AuthName Snake Oil Authentication AuthType Basic AuthBasicProvider ldap AuthLDAPRemoteUserAttribute uid AuthLDAPURL

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Graham Leggett
Udo Rader wrote: Maybe a more concrete sample can help clarify what I am talking about, here's my approximate setup: Location /fooBar SSLVerifyClient require SSLRequireSSL SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth AuthName Snake Oil Authentication AuthType Basic AuthBasicProvider ldap

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Udo Raderlist...@bestsolution.at wrote: Graham Leggett wrote:  SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth  AuthName Snake Oil Authentication  AuthType Basic  AuthBasicProvider ldap  AuthLDAPRemoteUserAttribute uid  AuthLDAPURL

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Udo Rader
Graham Leggett wrote: Udo Rader wrote: Maybe a more concrete sample can help clarify what I am talking about, here's my approximate setup: Location /fooBar SSLVerifyClient require SSLRequireSSL SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth AuthName Snake Oil Authentication AuthType Basic

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Udo Rader
Graham Leggett wrote: Udo Rader wrote: I am just trying to set up a X.509 client certificates + LDAP based authorizaton system. I've setup all pieces best to my knowledge (mod_ssl, mod_auth_basic, mod_auth_ldap), but I am still having problems to connect to our LDAP server because SSLOption

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Paul J. Reder
Technically what's being attempted here is a lookup rather than authentication. The intention is to do a query using the cert info to get back the uid from LDAP (as opposed to an LDAP connect with a password followed by a query). Currently the LDAP code only provides Authentication and/or

Re: X.509 client certificates and LDAP authorization

2009-09-08 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Udo Raderlist...@bestsolution.at wrote: Typically, certificate based authentication needs to be supported by LDAP, the latter translating the certificate subjects into real usernames, useable by external applications via REMOTE_USER. A change to mod_ssl to

A question about hook calling order

2009-09-08 Thread Eldar Gaynetdinov
Hi, I want to write tiny module which measure cpu time (on unix like system) for each request and write down values into the log. I think implement it by getrusage(). First hook (e.g. ap_hook_post_read_request) in this module should be called before the same hook in any other modules (I think

[VOTE] release httpd mod_ftp-0.9.5 beta?

2009-09-08 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Let's see if this is it... Please fetch up the newly prepared mod_ftp-0.9.5.tar.gz (or .bz2), or the win32/netware/os2 suitable package mod_ftp-0.9.5-crlf.zip from; http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_ftp/ review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice [ ] -1 for any release of 0.9.5

[VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?

2009-09-08 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
mod_fcgid freinds; Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2) or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/ review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice [ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from

Re: vote on concept of ServerTokens Off

2009-09-08 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb: Jim Jagielski wrote: Lars Eilebrecht wrote: According to Jeff: A lot of opinions were offered back in August. Some were negative but I don't see anything that looks like a veto. I voted -1 at that time

Re: vote on concept of ServerTokens Off

2009-09-08 Thread Issac Goldstand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Guenter, please confirm if you are casting a veto, or in light of this earlier discussion and rationale, you are just expressing your standing distaste for the patch (which is -0)? For the record, I also agree with