How would one correct this warning??
Thanks.
++
Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired)
mailto:mi...@guam.net
mailto:msetze...@gmail.com
mailto:msetze...@gmx.com
Guam - Where Am
I wrote:
>The basic issue seems to be that my Internet connection has become
>flaky. Provider alleges 45yo wiring is the problem. Tech visit is
>scheduled for Tuesday.
Tech was here and things seem to be working well now. He said the issue
was the connectors on the cables, not the cables themselv
On 5/27/25 5:10 AM, J.Witvliet--- via users wrote:
So, for hobby / home websites, certificates with a short lifespan is ok.
For anything else, a decent certificate provider should be used…
There is no problem for any site to have a short certificate lifespan
and that is going to be required w
> On 27 May 2025, at 15:29, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> OCSP Stapling fixed the problem.
Yes it did, but very few web sites would implement this solution.
Therefore the move to short cert life.
Barry
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedorapr
On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 10:28 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Not the same thing at all. Asking people to make up new passwords
> > according to arcane rules is an open invitation to having weak
> > passwords. Renewing certs periodically is a compromise between "never"
> > and "constantly".
>
> Key
On Tue, May 27, 2025, at 5:21 AM, François Patte wrote:
[snip]
> Either what is said is wrong and these pages must go to the dust bin, or
> anaconda from f42-xfce-live iso is buggy
>
> Thank you for attention.
I recently updated and tested my "HowTo" if I decide to rebuild my system as
UEFI
> Am 26.05.2025 um 21:25 schrieb Will McDonald :
>
> On Mon, 26 May 2025 at 20:05, bruce wrote:
> if u have...
> /etc/apache2/sites-available/.. there might be multiple conf files for
> different weapp projects. these files woul have virtual host configurations
> as well as alias direct
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 19:59 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
>>> If you have it all fully automated, it shouldn't hurt to use
>>> the shorter lifetime, but for the purposes being discussed
>>> here, it _seems_ like a moot point.
>>
>> I'm not sure I believe in their automat
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 6:50 AM Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 20:05 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 15:19 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > To reduce the size of Certificate Revocation List (CRL), and recover
> > > quickly from a compromised host. Conv
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 1:19 AM Michael D. Setzer II via users <
users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>
> Error code: SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER
>
> I can add an exception, but would have to have all users do the
> same. What is option to create the certificates.
>
> Just have some basic web page
Le 2025-05-26 13:27, Peter Boy Uni a écrit :
Am 26.05.2025 um 14:51 schrieb François Patte :
Bonjour,
I try to make a new install of f42.
I want to install it on 2 drives using RAID1, say /dev/sda and
/dev/sdb
I define partitions /boot/efi, /, swap, /var
When definning these partitions, I can
Le 2025-05-27 12:21, François Patte a écrit :
Le 2025-05-26 13:27, Peter Boy Uni a écrit :
Am 26.05.2025 um 14:51 schrieb François Patte
:
Bonjour,
I try to make a new install of f42.
I want to install it on 2 drives using RAID1, say /dev/sda and
/dev/sdb
I define partitions /boot/efi, /, sw
So, for hobby / home websites, certificates with a short lifespan is ok.
For anything else, a decent certificate provider should be used…
From: "Tim via users"
mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org>>
Date: Tuesday, 27 May 2025 at 12:36:07 pm
To: "noloa...@gmail.com" mailto:noloa...@gmail.com>>,
On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 20:05 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 15:19 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > To reduce the size of Certificate Revocation List (CRL), and recover
> > quickly from a compromised host. Conventional wisdom is, browsers
> > don't download CRLs or OCSP, so a sho
On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 19:59 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
> > If you have it all fully automated, it shouldn't hurt to use
> > the shorter lifetime, but for the purposes being discussed
> > here, it _seems_ like a moot point.
>
> I'm not sure I believe in their automation ideas, at all (having read
On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 15:19 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> To reduce the size of Certificate Revocation List (CRL), and recover
> quickly from a compromised host. Conventional wisdom is, browsers
> don't download CRLs or OCSP, so a short validity closes the gap in
> browser behavior.
That's the fi
On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 09:53 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> If so, it looks to be entirely optional:
>
> Our longer-lived certificates, which currently have a
> lifetime of 90 days, will continue to be available
> alongside our six-day offering. Subscribers will be able
> to opt in
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 10:31 PM ToddAndMargo via users
wrote:
> I have an Windows 11 ISO I burned to a 8GB USB
> stick. The burning process removed a bunch of
> hardware silliness.
>
> The stick is only about 5BG used.
>
> Is there a way to make an ISO out of the stick
> and only get the used s
18 matches
Mail list logo