Looks like almost all our users will need to reconfigure their cipher suites,
once we ship 2.4.26 and they install OpenSSL 1.1.x:
"If you explicitly configure your ciphersuites then care should be taken to
ensure that you are not inadvertently excluding all TLSv1.3 compatible
ciphersuites."
[crossposting dev@ and docs@]
On 05/04/2017 04:55 PM, jchamp...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jchampion
Date: Thu May 4 23:55:48 2017
New Revision: 1793940
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1793940=rev
Log:
override index: add deps and exclude from all-modules list
I found it a little weird
Afternoon all,
We have a setup where we have to use MIL CAC's to access our site. It
currently works with SSLVerifyClient require and SSLVerifyDepth 10, but
we want to limit what the users see to just of the certs that is
presented. We tried changing the VerifyDepth to 1 and removed all the
On 05/04/2017 05:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 05/03/2017 11:25 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Just as a heads up as I currently don't have time to investigate further. I
>> get the below on CentOS 6.9 64 bit, which
>> puzzles me a little bit as I would expect the errno addresses to be
>>
On 05/04/2017 09:39 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
On 05/04/2017 09:36 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Ugh... This suggests we've further broken crosscompile, just noticed
this based on your comment.
Why? Cross-compilation uses the same fallback mechanism.
To expand on this, there are three choices
On 05/04/2017 09:36 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Ugh... This suggests we've further broken crosscompile, just noticed
this based on your comment.
Why? Cross-compilation uses the same fallback mechanism. If a user
doesn't like the conservative choice, he/she should set the cachevars to
On May 4, 2017 10:47 AM, "Jacob Champion" wrote:
On 05/03/2017 11:25 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Just as a heads up as I currently don't have time to investigate further.
> I get the below on CentOS 6.9 64 bit, which
> puzzles me a little bit as I would expect the errno
On 05/03/2017 11:25 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Just as a heads up as I currently don't have time to investigate further. I get
the below on CentOS 6.9 64 bit, which
puzzles me a little bit as I would expect the errno addresses to be different
in different threads on my OS.
[Thu May 04
> Am 03.05.2017 um 15:46 schrieb Issac Goldstand :
>
> On 5/3/2017 4:28 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03.05.2017 um 15:22 schrieb Dirk-Willem van Gulik :
>>>
On 3 May 2017, at 15:14, Issac Goldstand wrote:
On 04/19/2017 05:54 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 11:34 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> It's probably worth noting at this point that, even if is unsafe:
>>
>> - Windows and BeOS users are still handled explicitly by default in 1.0.x.
>> - If OpenSSL still provides the deprecated
10 matches
Mail list logo