Hey All -
I am setting up a project for a buddy on a shoe-string budget and we
need a site protected by SSL. Self-signed won't cut it. I looked at
Verisign and to get a basic SSL cert from them is going to cost more
than the whole hardware budget for the project!
Anyone have any
On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 12:34 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote:
Hey All -
I am setting up a project for a buddy on a shoe-string budget and we
need a site protected by SSL. Self-signed won't cut it. I looked at
Verisign and to get a basic SSL cert from them is going to cost more
than the whole
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 12:34:27 -0500,
Thomas Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey All -
I am setting up a project for a buddy on a shoe-string budget and we
need a site protected by SSL. Self-signed won't cut it. I looked at
Why not? If you are interested in protection for the
Thomas Cameron wrote:
Hey All -
I am setting up a project for a buddy on a shoe-string budget and we
need a site protected by SSL. Self-signed won't cut it. I looked at
Verisign and to get a basic SSL cert from them is going to cost more
than the whole hardware budget for the project!
On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 13:48 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 12:34:27 -0500,
Thomas Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey All -
I am setting up a project for a buddy on a shoe-string budget and we
need a site protected by SSL. Self-signed won't cut it. I looked
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:27:19 -0500
Thomas Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because perception==reality. It will be publicly facing, and that whole
Firefox will not allow you to access this site without accepting that
this is an untrusted CA thing is off-putting for most members of the
On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 16:19 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:27:19 -0500
Thomas Cameron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because perception==reality. It will be publicly facing, and that whole
Firefox will not allow you to access this site without accepting that
this is an
