From Fedora Project Wiki

(Created page with 'vpnc might be added to this list - vpnc can be compiled with openssl support (which is massively useful). Presently that support is not compiled into the Fedora packages as it vi...')
 
(mod_nss vs mod_ssl)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
vpnc might be added to this list - vpnc can be compiled with openssl support (which is massively useful). Presently that support is not compiled into the Fedora packages as it violates the openssl license, which is a major pain. Perhaps it could be ported to use nss, thus killing two birds with one stone?
 
vpnc might be added to this list - vpnc can be compiled with openssl support (which is massively useful). Presently that support is not compiled into the Fedora packages as it violates the openssl license, which is a major pain. Perhaps it could be ported to use nss, thus killing two birds with one stone?
 +
 +
== Server Name Indication: mod_nss vs mod_ssl ==
 +
NSS does not yet support SNI ([https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360421 upstream bug 360421]), but mod_ssl does ([https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443513 Fedora bug 443513]). I don't think mod_nss can be touted as viable replacement until this is addressed. --[[User:Ktdreyer|Ktdreyer]] 05:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:13, 27 September 2009

vpnc might be added to this list - vpnc can be compiled with openssl support (which is massively useful). Presently that support is not compiled into the Fedora packages as it violates the openssl license, which is a major pain. Perhaps it could be ported to use nss, thus killing two birds with one stone?

Server Name Indication: mod_nss vs mod_ssl

NSS does not yet support SNI (upstream bug 360421), but mod_ssl does (Fedora bug 443513). I don't think mod_nss can be touted as viable replacement until this is addressed. --Ktdreyer 05:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)