You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk> on 2002/11/19 02:26:20 UTC
more changes to docs/manual/ssl/ssl_faq.xml
Another bunch of changes to remove some of the stuff that has
been obsoleted by the inclusion of mod_ssl in apache.
There is still some of the submitting bugs / mailing list stuff
(see http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/ssl/ssl_faq.html#contact)
that needs to be reworked - but someone needs to decide wether
to point at bugzilla and/or the bugdb at modssl.org.
Index: ssl_faq.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/httpd-2.0/docs/manual/ssl/ssl_faq.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -r1.4 ssl_faq.xml
--- ssl_faq.xml 17 Nov 2002 23:36:10 -0000 1.4
+++ ssl_faq.xml 18 Nov 2002 21:56:44 -0000
@@ -30,9 +30,6 @@
<section id="about"><title>About The Module</title>
<ul>
<li><a href="#history">What is the history of mod_ssl?</a></li>
-<li><a href="#apssl-diff">Apache-SSL vs. mod_ssl: differences?</a></li>
-<li><a href="#commalt">mod_ssl vs. commercial alternatives?</a></li>
-<li><a href="#modversion">mod_ssl/Apache versions?</a></li>
<li><a href="#y2k">mod_ssl and Year 2000?</a></li>
<li><a href="#wassenaar">mod_ssl and Wassenaar Arrangement?</a></li>
</ul>
@@ -63,99 +60,6 @@
opened, mod_ssl was integrated into the code base of Apache V2 in 2001.</p>
</section>
-<section id="apssl-diff"><title>What are the functional differences between mod_ssl and Apache-SSL, from which
-it is originally derived?</title>
-<p>This neither can be answered in short (there were too many code changes)
- nor can be answered at all by the author (there would immediately be flame
- wars with no reasonable results at the end). But as you easily can guess
- from the 5% of remaining Apache-SSL code, a lot of differences exists,
- although user-visible backward compatibility exists for most things.</p>
-
-
- <p>When you really want a detailed comparison you have to read the entries in
- the large <code>CHANGES</code> file that is in the mod_ssl
- distribution. Usually this is much too hard-core. So I recommend you to
- either believe in the opinion and recommendations of other users (the
- simplest approach) or do a comparison yourself (the most reasonable
- approach). For the latter, grab distributions of mod_ssl (from <a
- href="http://www.modssl.org/">http://www.modssl.org</a>) and Apache-SSL
- (from <a href="http://www.apache-ssl.org/">http://www.apache-ssl.org</a>),
- install both packages, read their documentation and try them out yourself.
- Then choose the one which pleases you most.</p>
-
- <p>A few final hints to help direct your comparison: quality of documentation
- ("can you easily find answers and are they sufficient?"), quality of
- source code ("is the source code reviewable so you can make sure there
- aren't any trapdoors or inherent security risks because of bad programming
- style?"), easy and clean installation ("can the SSL functionality easily
- added to an Apache source tree without manual editing or patching?"),
- clean integration into Apache ("is the SSL functionality encapsulated and
- cleanly separated from the remaining Apache functionality?"), support for
- Dynamic Shared Object (DSO) facility ("can the SSL functionality built as
- a separate DSO for maximum flexibility?"), Win32 port ("is the SSL
- functionality available also under the Win32 platform?"), amount and
- quality of functionality ("is the provided SSL functionality and control
- possibilities sufficient for your situation?"), quality of problem tracing
- ("is it possible for you to easily trace down the problems via logfiles,
- etc?"), etc. pp.</p>
-</section>
-
-<section id="commalt"><title>What are the major differences between mod_ssl and
-the commercial alternatives like Raven or Stronghold?</title>
-<p>In the past (until September 20th, 2000) the major difference was
- the RSA license which one received (very cheaply in contrast to
- a direct licensing from RSA DSI) with the commercial Apache SSL
- products. On the other hand, one needed this license only in the US,
- of course. So for non-US citizens this point was useless. But now
- even for US citizens the situations changed because the RSA patent
- expired on September 20th, 2000 and RSA DSI also placed the RSA
- algorithm explicitly into the public domain.</p>
-
- <p>Second, there is the point that one has guaranteed support from
- the commercial vendors. On the other hand, if you monitored the
- Open Source quality of mod_ssl and the support activities
- found on <a href="mailto:modssl-users@modssl.org">
- <code>modssl-users@modssl.org</code></a>, you could ask yourself
- whether you are really convinced that you can get better support
- from a commercial vendor.</p>
-
-
- <p>Third, people often think they would receive perhaps at least a
- better technical SSL solution than mod_ssl from the commercial
- vendors. But this is not really true, because all commercial
- alternatives (Raven 1.4.x, Stronghold 3.x, RedHat SWS 2.x, etc.)
- <em>are</em> actually based on mod_ssl and OpenSSL. The reason for
- this common misunderstanding is mainly because some vendors make no
- attempt to make it reasonably clear that their product is actually
- mod_ssl based. So, do not think, just because the commercial
- alternatives are usually more expensive, that you are also receiving
- an alternative <em>technical</em> SSL solution. This is usually not
- the case. Actually the vendor versions of Apache, mod_ssl and OpenSSL
- often stay behind the latest free versions and perhaps this way still do not
- include important bug and security fixes. On the other hand,
- it sometimes occurs that a vendor version includes useful changes
- which are not available through the official freely available
- packages. But most vendors play fair and contribute back those
- changes to the free software world, of course.</p>
-
- <p>So, in short: There are lots of commercial versions of the popular
- Apache+mod_ssl+OpenSSL server combination available. Every user
- should decide carefully whether they really need to buy a commercial
- version or whether it would not be sufficient to directly use the
- free and official versions of the Apache, mod_ssl and OpenSSL
- packages.</p>
-</section>
-
-<section id="modversion"><title>How do I know which mod_ssl version is for which Apache version?</title>
- <p>That's trivial: mod_ssl uses version strings of the syntax
- <em><mod_ssl-version></em>-<em><apache-version></em>, for
- instance <code>2.4.0-1.3.9</code>. This directly indicates that it's
- mod_ssl version 2.4.0 for Apache version 1.3.9. And this also means you
- <em>only</em> can apply this mod_ssl version to exactly this Apache
- version (unless you use the <code>--force</code> option to mod_ssl's
- <code>configure</code> command ;-).</p>
-</section>
-
<section id="y2k"><title>Is mod_ssl Year 2000 compliant?</title>
<p>Yes, mod_ssl is Year 2000 compliant.</p>
@@ -1014,24 +918,16 @@
subscribe to the list first, but then you can easily discuss your problem
with both the author and the whole mod_ssl user community.
</li>
- <li><em>Write a Problem Report to the author</em><br />
- <a href="mailto:rse@engelschall.com">rse@engelschall.com</a><br />
- This is the last way of submitting your problem report. Please avoid this
- in your own interest because the author is really a very busy men. Your
- mail will always be filed to one of his various mail-folders and is
- usually not processed as fast as a posting on modssl-users.
- </li>
</ol>
</section>
-<section id="reportdetails"><title>What information and details I've to provide to
-the author when writing a bug report?</title>
+<section id="reportdetails"><title>What information and details should I
+ provide when writing a bug report?</title>
<p>You have to at least always provide the following information:</p>
<dl>
- <dt>Apache, mod_ssl and OpenSSL version information</dt>
- <dd>The mod_ssl version you should really know. For instance, it's the version
- number in the distribution tarball. The Apache version can be determined
+ <dt>Apache and OpenSSL version information</dt>
+ <dd>The Apache version can be determined
by running ``<code>httpd -v</code>''. The OpenSSL version can be
determined by running ``<code>openssl version</code>''. Alternatively when
you have Lynx installed you can run the command ``<code>lynx -mime_header
@@ -1042,12 +938,11 @@
<dt>The details on how you built and installed Apache+mod_ssl+OpenSSL</dt>
<dd>For this you can provide a logfile of your terminal session which shows
the configuration and install steps. Alternatively you can at least
- provide the author with the APACI <code>configure</code> command line
- you used (assuming you used APACI, of course).
+ provide the <code>configure</code> command line you used.
</dd>
<dt>In case of core dumps please include a Backtrace</dt>
- <dd>In case your Apache+mod_ssl+OpenSSL should really dumped core please attach
+ <dd>In case your Apache+mod_ssl+OpenSSL should really dump core please attach
a stack-frame ``backtrace'' (see the next question on how to get it).
Without this information the reason for your core dump cannot be found.
So you have to provide the backtrace, please.
@@ -1075,7 +970,7 @@
<p>Follow the following steps:</p>
<ol>
<li>Make sure you have debugging symbols available in at least
- Apache and mod_ssl. On platforms where you use GCC/GDB you have to build
+ Apache. On platforms where you use GCC/GDB you have to build
Apache+mod_ssl with ``<code>OPTIM="-g -ggdb3"</code>'' to achieve this. On
other platforms at least ``<code>OPTIM="-g"</code>'' is needed.
</li>
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org