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
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
f Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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,
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 [EMA
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
Thanks for clarifying this for the group, Cliff.
Our 'hangup' was admittedly a little specific, and I am working my way around that
right now - if for no other reason than to reduce the updating cycle. (Yeah, I still
cannot love distribution rpms! May the Good Lord forgive my intransigence :-)
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 listening and didn't
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 efficiency,
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
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.
>
>
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
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 issues that I think many people
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
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.conf file in
> the resul
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
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
Geoff Thorpe <
Hey there,
On Tuesday 09 April 2002 10:18, you wrote:
> 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
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
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
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:
>
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
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+
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
OpenSSL is a separate issue, really. It is normally found in /usr/local/src. I am
using 0.9.6c currently, which I download as a tar.gz to my /usr/local/src file,
uncompress it with: gzip -dc openssl-0.9.6c.tar.gz | tar xf -
cd /usr/local/src/openssl-0.9.6c
./config shared
make all test install
> 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.
>
This is
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.
Lynn Gazis
___
...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.
>
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.:
> 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
Sounds like you would like the emerging Lunar-Linux release that is built
from source on the target machine. Take a look at
http://Lunar-Linux.org
It still has a lot of work to be done, but it looks like it is headed the
right direction. It has great tools for keeping a remote server up to dat
Hi!
Well said, and the written support from the group is long overdue, as are the well
deserved compliments.
I intend to rip out the bundled Apache from my SuSE Pro 7.3 distribution and give the
new threaded Apache a go. (I intend to do the same with Netscape, Mozilla and Sendmail
while I am
Hi mod_ssl users,
As most of you probably know, the development efforts of Apache 2 are
going to result in a product, soon. The current betas are already
stable, mature, fast, portable than ever, strong, and support many
features that we have dreamed about for years, like filtering (I
mention thi
32 matches
Mail list logo
