Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Python ssl handling could be better...
From: Michael Krymson <krymson () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:34:52 -0600
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....
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... bk (Feb 26)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... dave b (Feb 27)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... bk (Feb 27)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... Marsh Ray (Feb 28)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... bk (Feb 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... Michael Krymson (Feb 28)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... bk (Feb 28)
- Re: [PSRT] Python ssl handling could be better... Barry Warsaw (Feb 28)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... Brian Keefer (Feb 28)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... bk (Feb 28)
- Re: Python ssl handling could be better... dave b (Feb 27)