On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:16:28PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> From: Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I understand that some corporations choose to do that, although I do
> not agree with that kind of practice.
Basically, companies do it to protect themselves.. for the very
From: Tony Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tnelson> On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 08:44:17AM -0600, Mike Nigbor wrote:
tnelson> > OK, so how does this differ from a "man-in-the-middle" attack?
tnelson> >
tnelson> > Since there are two SSL sessions, there must be two session
tnelson> > encryption keys and t
ch?
TIA
Harry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Nelson
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proxy or Firewall
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 08:44:17AM -0600, Mike Nigbor wrote:
> OK, so how does this differ
--- --
Hope this helps,
Tony Nelson
TIS Worldwide, Firewall Admin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Dabbs
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Dabbs
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 6:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Proxy or Firewall
I believe that many enterprises that do not allow an unbroken SSL connection
directly from the client throught t
James Dabbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe that many enterprises that do not allow an unbroken SSL
> connection directly from the client throught the proxy/firewall to
> the remote server. [...] SSL is "broken" at the proxy, and
> reestablished with a seperate SSL session between the proxy an
sknecht, Deborah A [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 2:57 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Proxy or Firewall
>
> A few comments included within...
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Dabbs [mailto:[E
No since in re-inveting the wheel. Does anyone have code that they would
share?
> --
> From: David Lang[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 11:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE:
A few comments included within...
> -Original Message-
> From: James Dabbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: April 28, 2000 5:37 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Proxy or Firewall
..deleted stuff
> HTTP over SSL, though, works transparently
o: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Proxy or Firewall
>
> Generally speaking, use of "raw" SSL through a proxy requires special setup
> changes in the proxy itself. Depending on the environment, this may also
> require a security waiver f
Generally speaking, use of "raw" SSL through a proxy requires special setup
changes in the proxy itself. Depending on the environment, this may also
require a security waiver from the MIS department in charge of the proxy and
a security screen on the endpoints in question.
HTTP over SSL, though,
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Boyet, Adam C wrote:
> Is it possible to use Net::SSLeay and OpenSSL to make a SSL request through
> a proxy or firewall.
SSL thru TCP-level firewalls is no problem.
Cheers,
Rudi
__
OpenSSL Project
Boyet, Adam C wrote:
>
> Is it possible to use Net::SSLeay and OpenSSL to make a SSL request through
> a proxy or firewall.
>
Yes, it's possible. You must add some short code before SSL_Accept to
make connection through proxy.
If you use HTTP proxy, you may try something like this pseudocode:
13 matches
Mail list logo
