I use the Apache-SSL distribution. Prior to the Apache upgrade,
everything operated properly.
I have a CGI script that creates an html web page form, and when the
submit button is clicked, a second cgi script is called which creates a
second html web page form. When the submit button is clicke
Hello,
Does anyone know where I can get a wrapper written in C or perhaps a shell
script which I can use to setuid a command used by a CustomLog when piping?
Thank you!
Simon
-
The official User-To-User support forum of the
Krist van Besien a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
ServerName http://www.fakessh.eu
ServerAlias http://fakessh.eu
Maybe ServerAlias wants a simple hostname (doc implies this), and
doesn't interpret the protocol like ServerName does.
Both servername and serveralias
Krist van Besien a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
ServerName http://www.fakessh.eu
ServerAlias http://fakessh.eu
Maybe ServerAlias wants a simple hostname (doc implies this), and
doesn't interpret the protocol like ServerName does.
Both servername and serveralias
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Bruno - e-comBR wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/8 Brian Mearns
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
>> >> Is that possible if I want to serve both secure and unsecure (80 and
>> >> 443)? If I just
Brian Mearns wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Frank Gingras
wrote:
In a scenario where you have two vhosts on *:443, apache will serve the
certificate from the first vhost for both sites, therefore generating a SSL
certificate mismatch if a client were to request content from the seco
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Frank Gingras
wrote:
> In a scenario where you have two vhosts on *:443, apache will serve the
> certificate from the first vhost for both sites, therefore generating a SSL
> certificate mismatch if a client were to request content from the second
> vhost, and so o
Bruno - e-comBR wrote:
2009/1/8 Brian Mearns
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
Is that possible if I want to serve both secure and unsecure (80 and
443)? If I just setup my root configuration (i.e., not in
2009/1/8 Brian Mearns
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
> >> Is that possible if I want to serve both secure and unsecure (80 and
> >> 443)? If I just setup my root configuration (i.e., not in a vhost) to
> >> listen on
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
>>> Is that possible if I want to serve both secure and unsecure (80 and
>>> 443)? If I just setup my root configuration (i.e., not in
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
>> Is that possible if I want to serve both secure and unsecure (80 and
>> 443)? If I just setup my root configuration (i.e., not in a vhost) to
>> listen on port 80 and 443 and turn on the S
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Brian Mearns wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Krist van Besien
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Brian Mearns wrote:
>>
>>> Right, which I guess is a big problem for most use cases. For me, my
>>> certificate is self-signed anyway, and I already
2009/1/8 Brian Mearns :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Bruno - e-comBR wrote:
>> I think a bank site or a "big e-business site" won't HAVE TO use
>> virtual servers using another domains.
>>
>> And I also think a "common site" don't need SSL.
>
> I use SSL/TLS for privacy on my site, not for au
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Bruno - e-comBR wrote:
> I think a bank site or a "big e-business site" won't HAVE TO use
> virtual servers using another domains.
>
> And I also think a "common site" don't need SSL.
I use SSL/TLS for privacy on my site, not for authentication per se,
which is why
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Krist van Besien
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Brian Mearns wrote:
>
>> Right, which I guess is a big problem for most use cases. For me, my
>> certificate is self-signed anyway, and I already use it for multiple
>> hostnames (myserver.net, www.myserver.
This "issue" is similar to the "issue" of proxying HTTPS.
The only better option I see for web servers is to use only one
certificate for all the server, and the user will need to trust in the
server and ignore the wrong domain.
I think a bank site or a "big e-business site" won't HAVE TO use
vir
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:51 PM, sathya sai wrote:
>
> The UTF-8 equivalent for あいうえお (URI resource part) is
> %E3%81%82%E3%81%84%E3%81%86%E3%81%88%E3%81%8A. I use
> http://hpcgi1.nifty.com/glass/url/url_encode.cgi to verify the same.
That doesn't mean your browser transmitted those bytes.
>
> A
17 matches
Mail list logo
