Really, i myself cant explain why i couldnt read (or see!) those lines There they
were
in front of my eyes and i was looking every where else!
Too obvious perhaps . :)
Fanx again for your patience and understanding
G.
"Ralf S. Engelschall" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 1999, Khimenko V
Just a thought. To secure the key, it may be necessary to put the key on a
different machine. When the web server needs it, get it from there. After
using it, erase it from memory. This solves the core dump problem.
-Original Message-
From: Ralf S. Engelschall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
It seems I put an answer in the wrong place. The previous one was for the
"encryption server key...".
Sorry for the mix up.
-Original Message-
From: Ralf S. Engelschall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, March 11, 1999 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Sess
On Thu, Mar 11, 1999, glin wrote:
>[...]
> Just a thought. To secure the key, it may be necessary to put the key on a
> different machine. When the web server needs it, get it from there. After
> using it, erase it from memory. This solves the core dump problem.
Hmm... the webserver needs th
[...]
> Just a thought. To secure the key, it may be necessary to put the key on a
>
> different machine. When the web server needs it, get it from there. After
I've now finally moved the expansion location for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list from my development machine here at
home (which has only on-demand Internet connectivity) to one of my machines
with a good and permanent Internet connection. Actually this mailing list is
now served by the same
(an opinion)
> Just a thought. To secure the key, it may be necessary to put the key on a
> different machine. When the web server needs it, get it from there. After
> using it, erase it from memory. This solves the core dump problem.
No, I don't think so... The other machine has to decide,
On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 10:35:11AM +0100, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote
(to the sw-mod-ssl mailing list):
> On Wed, Mar 10, 1999, Juergen Rensen wrote:
>> I tried to setup
>> virtual SSL hosts on the same IP address, but Apache always returned one
>> and the same default site. Has this changed?
>
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 1999, Juergen Rensen wrote:
>
> >> I tried to setup
> >> virtual SSL hosts on the same IP address, but Apache always returned one
> >> and the same default site. Has this changed?
>
> > No, this cannot be changed. It's the chicken and egg problem HTTP
> > over SSL/TLS alway
On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> > think the example configuration does that). Question: Can this lead
> > to clients using the wrong session on one virtual host (thus possibly
> > bypassing client authorization, or using a session established with a
> > client certificate from
As you perhaps remember, one of my current projects is to add shared memory
pools to Apache 1.3. Because this would open a large scale of new
possibilities for module authors, especially for Doug, Rasmus and me.
For this I've already created an abstraction library in the past which I've
now pub
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999, Adam Hernik wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> > > think the example configuration does that). Question: Can this lead
> > > to clients using the wrong session on one virtual host (thus possibly
> > > bypassing client authorization, or using a ses
hi,
I've read the FAQ and scanned the archives. I haven't yet found a
solution.
The problem has come up on the list before: The server starts
successfully, but refuses connections from clients and sends messages
like this to the ssl_log:
[12/Mar/1999:12:30:09 -0600] Unable to set private key
[
"Ralf S. Engelschall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> When this is the case, then it gets hard for an OpenSSL application. Because
> AFAIK the in-core cache of OpenSSL (per server process) cannot be devided into
> separate instances (for each virtual server) by the application. So, it seem
"Ralf S. Engelschall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you perhaps remember, one of my current projects is to add shared memory
> pools to Apache 1.3. Because this would open a large scale of new
> possibilities for module authors, especially for Doug, Rasmus and me.
It would be really cool to
I saw the list archives that people are already aware of the bug, and was
wondering what the situation was regarding a solution. I can generate the
error on demand on my box using phpMyAdmin (a PHP3 MySQL management
interface) and MOT (a PHP3 job tracking DB).
In the meantime, should I revert
16 matches
Mail list logo
