Re: RfC: SSLVerifyDepth argument

1998-11-05 Thread Manuel J. Galan
I find right as it is now: Reason: Depth = 0 - disabled Depth = 1 - father - son Depth = 2 - son - father - son is like in akin degrees... two brothers are second degree akins because they share a common ancestor aunt and niece are third degree and so on... "Ralf S. Engelschall" wrote:

Re: RfC: SSLVerifyDepth argument

1998-11-04 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
In article you wrote: [...] And the depth check is done via | if (depth = SSLVerifyDepth) error... [...] My opinion is that the depth counting is ok startinbg from 0 and intuitive. But the check should be | if (depth SSLVerifyDepth) error... [...] Votes for the "=" to "" change and to

RfC: SSLVerifyDepth argument

1998-10-31 Thread Ralf S. Engelschall
We have a PR (#35) where the user is confused by the interpretation of the SSLVerifyDepth argument. He wants to only accept a cert which has to be directly signed by the to be known CA certificate, i.e. he wants to not allow intermediate CA certs. He intuitively thought SSLVerifyDepth 0 or