apache 2.0 fails on startup with SSL (no console or log errors found!)

Hi list folk! I'm having trouble getting mod_ssl working on a fresh install of apache 2.0 on SUSE Linux 9. The problem: when I start apache with 'APACHE_SERVER_FLAGS="-D SSL"' in my sysconfig/apache2 file, it fails with no explanation: no errors in the error log,

Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Mark Beiley wrote: I've learned that I can fix this problem by not using an external style sheet. This only affects IE6 on XP without SP2. Everyone else seems to be able to view my pages fine, and even these problematic IE6/XP

Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

I've learned that I can fix this problem by not using an external style sheet. This only affects IE6 on XP without SP2. Everyone else seems to be able to view my pages fine, and even these problematic IE6/XP customers can view pages with external style sheets that are not using HTTPS. Specifica

Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

eisler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:30 PM Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2) Hi Mark, Did you try Google <http://www.google.com/search?q=Starfield+cert+ie6>? I guess, the root certificate causes the trouble. Sven

Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

Hi Mark, Did you try Google ? I guess, the root certificate causes the trouble. Sven. Mark Beiley schrieb: > Hi Sven, > > Thanks for the reply. I believe I have KeepAlive off for this browser. > In my ssl.conf file I have: > > SetEnvIf User-A

Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

Hi Sven, Thanks for the reply. I believe I have KeepAlive off for this browser. In my ssl.conf file I have: SetEnvIf User-Agent ".*MSIE.*" \ nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \ downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0 Thanks, Mark http://www.beiley.com Hi Mark, Do you have KeepALiv

Re: Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

Hi Mark, Do you have KeepALive on in you server config for this browser? Sven. Mark Beiley schrieb: > Hello, > > Several customers are not able to access my server via HTTPS. Their > browser > just sits there, and doesn't display anything. I've determined the common > properties of these cas

Apache 2.0 + mod_ssl problems with IE6 on XP (no SP2)

Hello, Several customers are not able to access my server via HTTPS. Their browser just sits there, and doesn't display anything. I've determined the common properties of these cases to be: Windows XP (all of them without SP2) Internet Explorer 6 I can see their requests show up fine in my lo

Apache 2.0 + SSL + FreeBSD 5.1

Has anyone been able to successfully build Apache 2.0.48 --with-ssl and --enable-ssl? It seems the stock SSL library with FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE-p16 isn't up to snuff. Below is the section of the config.log related to mod_ssl. configure:9764: checking whether to enable mod_ssl configure:9800: result

problem with SSLVerifyClient required in apache 2.0

sorry, I've sent the same mail again accidentaly ==- Bu e-posta sadece yukarida isimleri belirtilen kisiler arasinda özel haberlesme amacini tasimaktadir. Size yanlislikla ulasmissa lütfen gönderen kisiyi bilgilendiriniz ve mesaji sis

problem with SSLVerifyClient required in apache 2.0

Hi, My system configuration is as follows: Mandrake 9.2 Apache 2.0.47 apache2-mod_ssl 2.0.47 OpenSSL 0.9.7b I want to authenticate my clients with certificates. Here is apache-ssl configuration: DocumentRoot "/var/www/html" ErrorLog logs/ssl_error_log TransferLog logs/ssl_access_log SSLEngine

Re: problem with SSLVerifyClient required in apache 2.0

On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:06:53PM +0200, Mahmut Eren wrote: > Hi, > My system configuration is as follows: > Mandrake 9.2 > Apache 2.0.47 > apache2-mod_ssl 2.0.47 > OpenSSL 0.9.7b ... > If I turn off the SSLVerifyClient parameter everything works fine. But > when I turn on SSLVerifyClient as "

problem with SSLVerifyClient required in apache 2.0

Hi, My system configuration is as follows: Mandrake 9.2 Apache 2.0.47 apache2-mod_ssl 2.0.47 OpenSSL 0.9.7b I want to authenticate my clients with certificates. Here is apache-ssl configuration: DocumentRoot "/var/www/html" ErrorLog logs/ssl_error_log TransferLog logs/ssl_access_log SSLEngine

RE: Patches and Enhancements for a SSL-Proxy Based on Apache 2.0 (mod_ssl, mod_proxy, mod_headers)

> Cool.. > Can you please post the patch to the list, so that ppl can review the > code, > and give their comments. > -Madhu No problem! Here is my short README describing the patch and its history form Apache version 2.0.43 to 2.0.44: Hello! This is the distribution point for th

Patches and Enhancements for a SSL-Proxy Based on Apache 2.0 (mod_ssl, mod_proxy, mod_headers)

Hello All, I want to provide updated information to my earlier described scenario using mod_ssl + mod_proxy + mod_headers: Component: Web Browser --- Proxy (mod_proxy) --- Web Server SSL Role: SSL Client --- SSL server | SSL Client --- SSL Server The following discussion focuses

Re: mod-ssl for apache 2.0.x - wasn't compiled

PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: Re: mod-ssl for apache 2.0.x - wasn't compiled > > > > [Questions] > > 1. Where can I explore further about mod_ssl on Apache-2.0.x ? Any link? > > I have a detailed chapter online just on that : > http://ww

Re: mod-ssl for apache 2.0.x - wasn't compiled

> [Questions] > 1. Where can I explore further about mod_ssl on Apache-2.0.x ? Any link? I have a detailed chapter online just on that : http://www.apacheworld.org/ty24/ > 2. Where can I download mod_ssl for Apache-2.0.39? (In case, the default > "ssl" module i

Re: mod-ssl for apache 2.0.x - wasn't compiled

On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:11:47PM +0800, Xeruz at Hotmail wrote: > [Questions] > 1. Where can I explore further about mod_ssl on Apache-2.0.x ? Any link? httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/ www.modssl.org/support/ (which has links to the archive of this list). > 2. Where can I download mo

mod-ssl for apache 2.0.x - wasn't compiled

$ make install After the compilation, I couldn't find any "mod_ssl.o" (openssl's libssl.so was there). I also checked with : $ httpd -l but mod_ssl.c was not in the list. [Questions] 1. Where can I explore further about mod_ssl on Apache-2.0.x ? Any link? 2. Where can I download mod

Re: Cryptoswift + Apache 2.0

Hi, Just got back from travelling and you don't seem to have had a reply to this so here goes. On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Estrade Matthieu wrote: > I am actually running Apache 2.0 with mod_proxy (reverse-proxy) and SSL, > on a Linux Redhat 7.2 dual AMD athlon 2Ghz MP with 1GB RAM. >

Re: Apache 2.0 OpenSSL error

s exited successfully. -=Ivelin=- - Original Message - From: "Estrade Matthieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:04 AM Subject: Apache 2.0 OpenSSL error Hi, for few days, i am stressing my apache 2.

Apache 2.0 OpenSSL error

Hi, for few days, i am stressing my apache 2.0.40 with reverse proxy with a tools named Silkperformer. i have a really strange error, coming up often on some basic requests: the request is http://web2.test.com/manual/images/pixel.gif [Wed Sep 18 12:24:04 2002] [error] SSL error on reading data

Cryptoswift + Apache 2.0

Hi, I am actually running Apache 2.0 with mod_proxy (reverse-proxy) and SSL, on a Linux Redhat 7.2 dual AMD athlon 2Ghz MP with 1GB RAM. I am using an hardware accelerator Rainbow Cryptoswift 600. (for 600 TPS). When i benchmark the server without the reverse proxy with a local document, i

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

Hunter and Brendan Thanks very much for your help. Hunter you are a genius!! I couldn't have asked for a more comprehensive breakdown of the solution. Anyhow problem solved and mod_ssl.so now loads - hooray! My test server is now configured so will now under go reliability testing before i

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

Sorry about replying to my own message. In the event that it may be useful I have placed the entire build on line -- that I made while creating my earlier instructions. I do not feel in anyway an authority, but I have managed to get the code to build and start (load). Though I did not finish

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

I apologize for the sloppiness... hunter wrote: > arcean wrote: > (snip) > I will have to download new source and try again to know what the > situation is and I am sorry but I have to run off to work. Later, ok? > > Chris. > I have not located an msi installer for Apache 2.0.39 These are th

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

arcean wrote: > -- Original Message -- > From: hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:22:37 -0400 > > >>arcean wrote: >> >>>-- Original Message -- >>>From: Alex Moon <[E

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

Alex wrote: > I've been trying to get apache 2.0.39 +modssl to work under winNT. > But i am failing at what seems like the first hurdle i.e. i cannot seem to get the > apache mod_ssl.so module to load. It comes up with the following: > > Cannot load C:/apache2/modules/mod_ssl.so into server:

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

-- Original Message -- From: hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 09:22:37 -0400 >arcean wrote: >> -- Original Message -- >> From: Alex Moon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: [

Re: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

arcean wrote: > -- Original Message -- > From: Alex Moon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:37:20 +0100 > > >>I've been trying to get apache 2.0.39 +modssl to work under winNT. >>But i am failing at what seems l

RE: Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

-- Original Message -- From: Alex Moon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:37:20 +0100 >I've been trying to get apache 2.0.39 +modssl to work under winNT. > But i am failing at what seems like the first hurdle i.e. i

Failure to load mod_ssl under NT/apache 2.0

I've been trying to get apache 2.0.39 +modssl to work under winNT. But i am failing at what seems like the first hurdle i.e. i cannot seem to get the apache mod_ssl.so module to load. It comes up with the following: Cannot load C:/apache2/modules/mod_ssl.so into server: The operating system

Re: apache 2.0 hates older linux kernels:

>Umm, yers might be considered older in relative terms, but, I'm using a >slackware 3.6 version on the box I'm trying to work on, so the kernel is a >patched up 2.0.35-6 derivative, older yet then the 7.1 slackware/2.2.16 >kernel you are working on there. You're right. Dunno what made me see/thi

Re: apache 2.0 hates older linux kernels:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, B. van Ouwerkerk wrote: > > >uname -a > >Linux darkstar 2.0.35 #4 Mon Dec 14 18:18:57 CST 1998 i586 unknown > > > >and no matter how we configure, apache dies under > > SNIP > > Just tested it on my old local testbed server.. (not online) > > Slackware 7.1.0 > Kernel 2.2.

Re: apache 2.0 hates older linux kernels:

>uname -a >Linux darkstar 2.0.35 #4 Mon Dec 14 18:18:57 CST 1998 i586 unknown > >and no matter how we configure, apache dies under SNIP Just tested it on my old local testbed server.. (not online) Slackware 7.1.0 Kernel 2.2.16 Apache 2.0.39 Just did the normal configure, make and make install

apache 2.0 hates older linux kernels:

uname -a Linux darkstar 2.0.35 #4 Mon Dec 14 18:18:57 CST 1998 i586 unknown and no matter how we configure, apache dies under: /bin/sh /mnt/src/httpd-2.0.39/srclib/apr/libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc -g -O2-DLINUX=2 -D_REENTRANT -DAP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER -I/mnt/src/httpd-2.0.39

Re: important - virtual hosts for apache 2.0

t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Re: important - virtual hosts for apache 2.0 > Thanx Andrew for a quick response. > > I am in a mess ... this project landed in my lap just 8 days back when I new > nothing about apache

Re: important - virtual hosts for apache 2.0

sslverifyclient require > > I have read that i will require IP base virtual hosts. > ...and... > RE:>> > I want to use apache 2.0 how do I configure it with mod_ssl & openssl. > > Okay, now that you have shared the background, what exactly is happening? I >

http & https on apache 2.0

I have configured my httpd.conf & ssl.conf file also but probably I am not doing some thing right as my site is not opening as required. My Q is How do i configure my http.conf & ssl.conf in apache 2.0 if - I have one page which has to be http I have the second page which has to be ht

Re: modssl for Apache 2.0

e - From: "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "modssl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:05 PM Subject: Re: modssl for Apache 2.0 > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Chuck Goehring wrote: > > > I see all the activity on the list about

RE: Re: modssl for Apache 2.0

he need for ssl - Not doing ecomerce. > >Chuck > >- Original Message - >From: "George Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:07 PM >Subject: RE: modssl for Apache 2.0 > > >> Chuck: >

Re: modssl for Apache 2.0

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: RE: modssl for Apache 2.0 > Chuck: > > With Apache 2.0, mod_ssl is a part of the 'whole'. The build is a far simpler process, and the server, at least in my experience, is much crisper in terms of respo

Apache 2.0.* and SSL success

Hello all. OK. I think I have a solution for base-line Apache-2.0.35 +mod_ssl +openssl-0.9.6c. So far, I've rebuilt my RedHat 7.2 test server three times and followed this checklist with success. Assumptions: Openssl and httpd tar balls are located in /download directory You untar the tar ball

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, R. DuFresne wrote: > I've found this, do I point at the openssl dir I have the all the sub dirs > and bins installed in, or to the source tree they were compiled from? The install dir's prefix. So, for example, if your OpenSSL is in /usr/lib and /usr/include/openssl, then y

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

rs. Hint --with-ssl=DIR is probably what you're looking for. Oh, and Apache 2.0's mod_ssl doesn't use mm anymore... it uses the shared memory support that's built in to APR. --Cliff __ Apache

Apache 2.0 and mod_ssl compile problem.

I have had a few problems when compiling Apache 2.0.35 with mod_ssl. My first error was no yacc - I found the line in the modules/ssl/Makefile and changed it for bison, I have tried options --fixed-outout-files and --yacc, but it seems the y.tab.h file is not produced. However I have also note

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

, R. DuFresne wrote: > > > When is apache 2.0 coming out of beta and into primetime? > > How did you manage to miss the party? :) It went GA last week with the > release of 2.0.35. > > --Cliff > > ___

Re: modssl for Apache 2.0

R. DuFresne wrote: > > When is apache 2.0 coming out of beta and into primetime? April 6, 2002. -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Ha

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, R. DuFresne wrote: > When is apache 2.0 coming out of beta and into primetime? How did you manage to miss the party? :) It went GA last week with the release of 2.0.35. --Cliff __ Apache Interface

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, George Walsh wrote: > As for windows, that is NOT my cup of tea. We are a Micro-soft Free zone > here, so I cannot comment on the peculiarities you might experience in > your environment. I really do not know hy you would want to run a secure > server on top of a windows box,

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

When is apache 2.0 coming out of beta and into primetime? Thanks, Ron DuFresne On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, George Walsh wrote: > Chuck: > > With Apache 2.0, mod_ssl is a part of the 'whole'. The build is a far simpler >process, and the server, at least in my experience, is

RE: modssl for Apache 2.0

Chuck: With Apache 2.0, mod_ssl is a part of the 'whole'. The build is a far simpler process, and the server, at least in my experience, is much crisper in terms of response. As for windows, that is NOT my cup of tea. We are a Micro-soft Free zone here, so I cannot comm

Re: modssl for Apache 2.0

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Chuck Goehring wrote: > I see all the activity on the list about Apache 2.0 and modssl. Where > can I get the necessary "stuff" for Apache 2.0. I don't see it on the > modssl, openssl or Apache web sites. I need to get ssl up on Apache on >

modssl for Apache 2.0

  I see all the activity on the list about Apache 2.0 and modssl.  Where can I get the necessary "stuff" for Apache 2.0.  I don't see it on the modssl, openssl or Apache web sites.  I need to get ssl up on Apache on Windows 2000.     Chuck

RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

message as I got from my own application and from OpenSSL's s_client. Lynn Gazis -Original Message- From: Lynn Gazis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:15 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL OK, I've tested it, and so

RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

SSLCryptoDevice line, and tested to see whether I could make Apache 2.0 work with SSL with no accelerator. This also failed; the server started, but when I generated traffic, none of my handshakes succeeded, and my error log showed lots of "[error] [client 10.10.37.185] Invalid method in request

apache 2.0 trying to reinitialise ssl

I am trying to run apache 2.0.35 with ssl on a Solaris box. I can compile and install without any problems. But when I try and run it fails with an error message about (theoretically impossible) failed re-initialisation of SSL (see log extract below) (i also tried configuring mod_ssl as a share

Re: Apache 2.0 and SSL

I have some questions related to Apache 2.0, SSL and IPv6. IPv6-based VHosts for SSL will work? Cyb.org __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:03:28AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Mads Toftum wrote: > > > I too could add a whole lot of reasons to not migrate if you're doing SSL. > > Up to about a week before Apache went GA, there were substantial commits to > > SSL code which to me makes i

RE: Re: Apache 2.0 and SSL

ransigence :-) George Cliff Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, George Walsh wrote: > >> I, for one, would be more than happy to use Apache 2.0. BUT, I need >> mod_ssl to function and as I understand it, mod_ssl applications cannot >> cope with

Re: Apache 2.0 and SSL

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, George Walsh wrote: > I, for one, would be more than happy to use Apache 2.0. BUT, I need > mod_ssl to function and as I understand it, mod_ssl applications cannot > cope with cgi, so I really have no place to start. Just to clarify for those who might be list

Re: Apache 2.0 and SSL

I, for one, would be more than happy to use Apache 2.0. BUT, I need mod_ssl to function and as I understand it, mod_ssl applications cannot cope with cgi, so I really have no place to start. Running without the nedd for https, I have been VERY impressed with Apache 2.0's speed and effic

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Eli Marmor wrote: > This, exactly, was one of my intentions when I opened this thread. Glad to hear it. :) > BTW: Great article about 2.0, Cliff! (IIRC, it was Linux Magazine). Thanks! It's good to know that people got something out of it. PS: for anyone else who's int

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

Cliff Woolley wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Mads Toftum wrote: > > > I too could add a whole lot of reasons to not migrate if you're doing SSL. > > Up to about a week before Apache went GA, there were substantial commits to > > SSL code which to me makes it an essentially untested module. > >

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Mads Toftum wrote: > I too could add a whole lot of reasons to not migrate if you're doing SSL. > Up to about a week before Apache went GA, there were substantial commits to > SSL code which to me makes it an essentially untested module. While I can't wholly disagree with you

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:52:26PM +1200, Geoff Thorpe wrote: > I would respectfully suggest that modssl discussions stay here. I don't want > to rag on Apache 2.0, and I'm sure a lot of good things have found their way > into it, but it does not solve a number of issue

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:34:12PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Eli Marmor wrote: > > > I think that we should open a special mailing list for mod_ssl of > > Apache2. > > My personal opinion would be that most modssl users' questions will be of > the same nature regardless o

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:49:37AM -0700, Lynn Gazis wrote: > What options are needed to "configure," with Apache 2.0, to make sure that > mod_ssl is enabled, and that a particular OpenSSL directory is used? I > tried guessing at the right options, but a look at the httpd

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:18:29AM +0300, Eli Marmor wrote: > Anyway, the fact is that all of the discussions regarding 2.0 are done > in the new-httpd list, and not here (at least till this thread). So it > is clear that something must be done. Maybe a request to new-httpd > subscribers to move t

RE: Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

Very well said, Geoff. I have 'played' with Apache 2.0 but certainly not with anything having to do with https and ssl. Now, with a heavy launch schedule in front of me, I have all I can do to switch people out of windows and into KDE/GNOME environments. Respectfully, George Ge

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

scribers to move the SSL discussions to here? I would respectfully suggest that modssl discussions stay here. I don't want to rag on Apache 2.0, and I'm sure a lot of good things have found their way into it, but it does not solve a number of issues that I think many people in production en

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

Steve Gonzales wrote: > One list is enough for me. SSL theory doesn't change from 1.3.xx to > 2.0.xx; only the configuration and installation changes. There are many other issues, like the "-DEAPI" and 3rd party modules that cause Apache to crash. Anyway, the fact is that all of the discussio

RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Steve Gonzales wrote: > One list is enough for me. SSL theory doesn't change from 1.3.xx to > 2.0.xx; only the configuration and installation changes. And even that is mostly the same. :) -- Cliff Woolley [E

RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

CEBA 225.578.5990 (f) Baton Rouge, LA 70803 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Cliff Woolley Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Eli Marmor wrote: >

RE: Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

Oh please, no, not another one I'm drowning just trying to keep up as it is, but that, as they say, is but one man's opinion. I know - I don't have to joi, but then the existing established groups might not be as representative as they would otherwise be. George >On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, El

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Eli Marmor wrote: > I think that we should open a special mailing list for mod_ssl of > Apache2. My personal opinion would be that most modssl users' questions will be of the same nature regardless of version. The kinds of questions we get here: (1) why can't I use NBVH+

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

By the way: I think that we should open a special mailing list for mod_ssl of Apache2. The current list focuses on 1.3, which is completely different than 2, and even comes in a very different way (as a patch, rather than a filter). The developers and maintainers are different. And the new mod_s

RE: RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

... and voila! Apache 2.0 includes its own mod_ssl as part of the 'new look'. That gives you encryption while openssl gives you certification services. FWIW I prefer to remove rpm installations for Apache, mod_ssl, mozilla, netscape, opera and sendmail so I can keep painlessly up-to

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

> What options are needed to "configure," with Apache 2.0, to make sure that > mod_ssl is enabled, and that a particular OpenSSL directory is used? I > tried guessing at the right options, but a look at the httpd.conf file in > the resulting installation suggests that I g

RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

What options are needed to "configure," with Apache 2.0, to make sure that mod_ssl is enabled, and that a particular OpenSSL directory is used? I tried guessing at the right options, but a look at the httpd.conf file in the resulting installation suggests that I guessed wrong.

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

...well, I'm keeping it for myself! *grin* At 02:10 AM 4.8.2002 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote: >Oops... > >The last message was intended personally for George Walsh, and not for >the list... >-- >Eli Marmor >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >CTO, Founder >Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. >

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

Oops... The last message was intended personally for George Walsh, and not for the list... -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.:

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

> Well said, and the written support from the group is long overdue, as > are the well deserved compliments. Thanks! -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020

Re: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

onf. > > > >Ben did a great job by creating apache_ssl. > >Ralf did a great job too, by improving it, and his impressive efforts > >and skills that were invested in developing and maintaining mod_ssl. > >We all owe a great thank to Ralf for other Open Source projects tha

RE: Apache 2.0.* and SSL

g apache_ssl. >Ralf did a great job too, by improving it, and his impressive efforts >and skills that were invested in developing and maintaining mod_ssl. >We all owe a great thank to Ralf for other Open Source projects that he >does, or joins. > >Now it's time to make the ne

Apache 2.0.* and SSL

ested in developing and maintaining mod_ssl. We all owe a great thank to Ralf for other Open Source projects that he does, or joins. Now it's time to make the next step, and migrate to Apache 2.0. It still requires some work and testing. It can happen if we all join this effort. I am not a member

Re: Support for Apache 2.0

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Ted Rolle wrote: > I've looked for mod-ssl support for Apache-2.0 (httpd-2.0), but haven't > found any so far. What is its status? Please read my post from Wednesday about this. The message ID is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you'd like to look for it

Support for Apache 2.0

I've looked for mod-ssl support for Apache-2.0 (httpd-2.0), but haven't found any so far. What is its status? __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Ma

RE: mod_ssl for Apache 2.0

t: RE: mod_ssl for Apache 2.0 > > Thanks very much for the information. Infact over the last couple of > > days, I've managed to eliminate most of the "#if 0 ... #endif" portions of > > the code - and get the code to compile (ofcourse with major exceptions).. &

modssl for apache 2.0.x

I can't find it, it supposed to be under httpd-2.0/modules, but i can't find. Has it not been release yet ? Regards Fredrik Lindstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dunenets.net __ Apache Interface

Re: Apache 2.0 and mod_ssl status

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 04:00:34PM +0200, ModSSL user wrote: > Hi, > > Did there is new about mod_ssl port to Apache 2.0 ? > Or will it be merged to mod_tls ? Haven't you already asked this question once - http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modssl&m=9837837482756

Apache 2.0 and mod_ssl status

Hi, Did there is new about mod_ssl port to Apache 2.0 ? Or will it be merged to mod_tls ? Regards __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List [EMAIL

Re: Apache 2.0

On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 11:18:03PM +0100, Mats Dufberg wrote: > > Do I interpret it correctly that SSL/TLS will be included in base Apache > 2.0, and that the SSL/TLS code is based on something else but the mod_ssl > code? > > I find no sign of SSL/TLS in the Apache documenta

Re: Apache 2.0

perspective in fairness to all (regardless of my personal preference for mod_ssl): There is actually a rather big technical problem with just dumping *either* mod_ssl or Apache-SSL into Apache 2.0. That is that the I/O mechanics of Apache 2.0 are *completely* different than those of 1.3. SSL/TLS in 2.

Re: Apache 2.0

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > > What about mod_ssl port to Apache 2.0. > > You proposed some time ago to put all mod_ssl 2.8.x in Apache 2.0 tree > > but there is still nothing. > > Although I offered the whole mod_ssl 2.8 code basis under the ASF >

Re: Apache 2.0

** Reply to note from "ModSSL user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:20:24 +0100 > > Hi, > > What about mod_ssl port to Apache 2.0. > > You proposed some time ago to put all mod_ssl 2.8.x in Apache 2.0 tree > but there is still nothing. If I

Re: Apache 2.0 (fwd)

Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dave Paris wrote: > Apache has been (arguably) one of the best OS projects to date. It > pains me to see the obvious, and most successful current SSL > implementation not be chosen for the 2.0 revision. I definitely don't > recall see

Re: Apache 2.0

I think the biggest thing we can do is take a wait and see attitude, but keep on top of the ssl issue as a whole. The other thing to do is to review the technical reasons why mod_ssl should not be incorporated at all, to try and dispell any and all political issues people in that group may have. P

Re: Apache 2.0

Austin Gonyou wrote: > > Thank you all for your ear, and sorry if it's a bit long. I'm quite > passionate about OpenSource and what it's potentials are. It simply > breaks my heart to see people who are usually enlightened enough to > believe in freedom and openness breed politics into something

Re: Apache 2.0

it is a mistake not to use mod_ssl code in Apache 2.0, but with no truly objective debate happening in the Apache list(from what I've seen I don't consider 'mod_ssl is spaghetti' as objective), then both projects suffer. Mod_ssl less than the ASF I think, but that's the w

  1   2   >