x.509 on Apache

2002-08-09 Thread Bao, Xiliang
Title: RE: Apache 2.039 Hi: I am try to config Apache 1.3.26 with SSL. I create a certificate and Apache server runs. But when I try visit the website from windows browser (IE5.x or Netscape 6.x), it can not visit the website. I have referenced some document, but none of really solve the

error while signing the csr

2002-08-09 Thread Philippe Marsalle
Hi , I want to create a ssl server certificate for an intranet server (apache 1.3.14). I carefully follow the instruction of the documentation which comes with mod-ssl : I created a private key for the server: # openssl genrsa -des3 -out server key 1024 I created a csr with the previous

Re: x.509 on Apache

2002-08-09 Thread EdwardSPL
Are using OpenSSL 0.9.6d ? If, so...Please upgrade to OpenSSL 0.9.6e, then I think you can visit the website by using https protocol ! "Bao, Xiliang" wrote: Hi:I am try to config Apache 1.3.26 with SSL. I create a certificate and Apache server runs.But when I try visit the website from windows

Re: error while signing the csr

2002-08-09 Thread EdwardSPL
Hello, Many users they recommend to use apache 1.3.26 and OpenSSL 0.9.6d ( I suggest to use 0.9.6e, because I was fail to compile and install 0.9.6d, but I want to know is it a bug about apache 1.3.26 and OpenSSL 0.9.6d really from other user ) ! Edward. Philippe Marsalle wrote: Hi , I

Re: error while signing the csr

2002-08-09 Thread Maurizio Marini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 www.google.com search: error 7 at 0 depth lookup:certificate signature failure the first is: http://lists.openna.com/archives-openna-users/2002-February/msg00028.html not more not less (RTFM google) or die(i'm too lame, adios); - -- maumar

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: Upgrade to 0.9.6e. Make that 0.9.6f, released today. :) --Cliff __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: Make that 0.9.6f, released today. :) That's what I get for not reading all of my email before responding to any of it. 0.9.6g was also released today. Sigh. :) __ Apache Interface

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Maurizio Marini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 09 August 2002 04:27 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: Upgrade to 0.9.6e. Make that 0.9.6f, released today. :) g, just a few minutes ago.. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6

RE: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Xiao, Wei
Title: RE: Apache 2.039 Followed your instruction, finally got every configuration done. But server won't start with following message in error_log, [Fri Aug 09 11:49:29 2002] [warn] Init: PRNG still contains not sufficient entropy! [Fri Aug 09 11:49:32 2002] [error] Init: Failed to generate

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: That's what I get for not reading all of my email before responding to any of it. 0.9.6g was also released today. Sigh. :) I guess today was the day for releases. Apache 2.0.40 is now out as well. --Cliff

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread R. DuFresne
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: That's what I get for not reading all of my email before responding to any of it. 0.9.6g was also released today. Sigh. :) I guess today was the day for releases. Apache 2.0.40 is now out as well.

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread R. DuFresne
This is a security fix release for those using apache in Cygwin environments! quote Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 22:07:52 +0100 (BST) From: Mark J Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Full Disclosure [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vuln-Dev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Apache 2.0

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, R. DuFresne wrote: Any word on if this compiles on those older linux kernels as the previous release was a total dud in that realm? Probably no change. But FWIW, I believe one of our developers tried it on an older kernel and it worked fine for him... if you could