full-disclosure - Re: Python ssl handling could be better...

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTikxfPjP-nQj2dO7JNHRp-7=_oXMVEi8geJqSfUj@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:34:52 -0600
From: Michael Krymson <krymson@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Python ssl handling could be better...

You're preaching to the choir...I agree there should be support, but don't
go all talking about changing defaults without at least some thought
involved.

What about self-signed certs in my closed network?
What about guests on a network behind a web proxy that MITMs 80/443?
What if you're brokering a connection, not for some strict security sake,
but just because you can and gain a little bit of privacy? Have any personal
web sites/servers you don't *need* commercial certs for but want something
anyway?

In an ideal world, I hear what you're saying. But we're far from ideal...

I think we should be happy with the inclusion of such options in 3.2....

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/