Re: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?)

2001-08-01 Thread cmanolache
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Christopher Cain wrote: > Yep, I can certainly implement it that way if you like. How does that > jive with the current server.xml setup, though? Isn't there still a > separate tag in 3.3 for SSL? Does that then go away in favor > of the Interceptor, or does the Interceptor b

Re: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?)

2001-08-01 Thread Christopher Cain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi Christopher, > > I just checked, and for 3.3 you don't need any change in the core or any > other place in tomcat. Cool, I didn't think so. I figure that if I needed a core change for a command-line challenge at startup, I most probably did something wrong. =)

Re: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?)

2001-08-01 Thread cmanolache
Hi Christopher, I just checked, and for 3.3 you don't need any change in the core or any other place in tomcat. All you need to do is write a simple interceptor and implement addInterceptor() callback. In the implementation all you have to do is ask for a password ( one sugestion: you can add an

Re: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?)

2001-08-01 Thread Christopher Cain
Larry Isaacs wrote: > > Hi Christopher, > > I would be very interested in having this available for Tomcat 3.3. > Since I'm not a security expert, I'll defer to those better informed > to decide the appropriate solution. Would this "keystore security > solution" plug into Tomcat 3.3 using an i

RE: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?)

2001-08-01 Thread Larry Isaacs
s or jakarta-tomcat-addons, to hold something like this. Cheers, Larry > -Original Message- > From: Christopher Cain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 7:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?) > > &g

Re: [PROPOSAL] Standalone SSL (status?)

2001-07-31 Thread Christopher Cain
I forgot to mention that I plan on offering to port this initial keystore security solution (whatever it ends up being, although the Apache-style prompt is so far the only idea being floated) to the 3.3 if there is any interest in having it. I don't technically consider it a bug, so the 3.2 branch