Anything new on this? Will 6.10 (at last) remove SSLv3?
--
Jori Mäntysalo
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, kcrisman wrote:
At http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17164 it seems that Sage 6.8 has not
support for vulnerable SSLv3 anymore. But it still seems to have - at
least on SageNB.
Dima was the one who green lighted that, I assume he can confirm it's not a
problem.
Anything
Bumping this up. We had yet another it group meeting with talk about that.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, kcrisman wrote:
At http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17164 it seems that Sage 6.8
has not
support for vulnerable SSLv3 anymore. But it still seems to have
- at
least on S
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Sage(nb) does not ship its own ssl implementation, so it got to updated
elsewhere.
OK, but does it contain a configuration file for ssl? Or some commands
that use system-wide ssl without configuration?
At least Ubuntu tells how to disable SSLv3 ---
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 22:56:45 UTC-7, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> >>> At http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17164 it seems that Sage 6.8 has
> not
> >>> support for vulnerable SSLv3 anymore. But it still seems to have - at
> >>> least on SageNB.
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
At http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17164 it seems that Sage 6.8 has not
support for vulnerable SSLv3 anymore. But it still seems to have - at
least on SageNB.
I have and old installation that I have upgraded version-by-version
for years.
Probably
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 06:37:15AM -0700, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> > At http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17164 it seems that Sage 6.8 has not
> > support for vulnerable SSLv3 anymore. But it still seems to have - at
> > least on SageNB.
> >
> >
> Dima was the one who green lighted that, I assume h
> At http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17164 it seems that Sage 6.8 has not
> support for vulnerable SSLv3 anymore. But it still seems to have - at
> least on SageNB.
>
>
Dima was the one who green lighted that, I assume he can confirm it's not a
problem.
> Can someone clarify this? I have a
