I also use an adapted sslpoe in PoCo::Server::FTP, but its not stable. I guess I'm missing something. I get alot of broken pipes and handshake failures (I've also replaced the die's), hence I haven't released the ssl version of PoCo::Server::FTP. Maybe everyone can post thier version somewhere, and we can compare notes.... I'll be in #poe as xantus.
-- David Davis Perl Programmer http://teknikill.net/ On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:03:52 -0500, Nick Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oops. Reply went to Rocco but not the list: here it is. > > -- Nick > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nick Perez > To: Rocco Caputo > Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:01:32 -0500 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] sslpoe-sanity-patch > > I guess I should have sent my changes upstream which are in fact the > very same changes here. I use this in PoCo::Jabber::Client::XMPP and > also in Server::XMPP but adapted it for my own uses. I am not offering > to maintain it, but I will test it against my code and perhaps share > notes on these changes and others with whomever does take up maintainership. > > -- Nick > > Rocco Caputo wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:07:51PM -0400, Dylan William Hardison wrote: > > > >>Some changes to SslClient.pm in sslpoe: > >> > >>Remove reference to $socket from %Filenum_Object. > >>Reason: It was keeping the tied filehandle from being DESTROYed. > >> > >>In the READ method: Change "die ("handshake failed");" > >>to $! = 104; return undef. > >>Reason: This makes POE handle it like a normal > >>error. Dying allowed someone to send garbage via netcat > >>and crash the program, thus adding a DoS to any server that > >>uses SSL. That's not good. > >> > >>However, errno 104 is "Connection reset by peer", and this is a lie. > >>Really the handshake failed... Perhaps some other value should be used > >>for $!. > >> > >>Added a DESTROY method that calls CLOSE, > >>as CLOSE is not called otherwise. > >> > >>The patch is attached. > > > > > > KTHXAPPLIED! > > > > > >>These changes are pretty trivial, and further > >>work needs to be done on SslClient.pm to make it more robust. Also > >>perhaps it should properly be named "SSLSocketWraper" or somesuch? > >>The name is most confusing. > > > > > > I wouldn't mind that, but I don't do enough SSL work (as in ANY) to > > have a good idea what to do here. If you'd like, I'm ok with someone > > adopting and developing the project a bit. Preferably someone who > > uses it. > > > > >
