You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> on 2015/07/07 15:39:56 UTC
Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
On 30/06/2015 21:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
> This is probably off-topic now so marking as such.
>
> On 29/06/2015 14:29, André Warnier wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2015 19:37, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/2015 11:56, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 22/06/2015 09:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>> Prompting for authentication in response to an untrusted certificate is
>>>>> bizarre to say the least.
<snip/>
> Progress, if you can call it that, has not been good. They have now
> asked for additional network traces since:
>
> <quote>
> ... to be able to understand what packets are sent by client and what
> response did Server generate for the specific packet, I would like to
> check a simultaneous trace on both communication endpoints
> </quote>
>
> I have just sent a very long, fairly stropy reply pointing out the
> complete pointlessness of this request - not least because the
> information they claim they don't have is right in front of them in the
> form of the sequence and acknowledgement numbers in the network trace.
This continues to drag on. The stropy e-mail got the issue re-assigned
to someone with marginally more clue. They put together a test
environment (with IIS instead of Tomcat) and then attempted to
demonstrate that the issue did not occur and hence it must be a Tomcat
problem.
However, once they had configured their environment to match my original
bug report (server using cert issued by CA client doesn't trust, server
configured not to require authentication) imagine my lack of surprise
when the problem was repeated with IIS. Needless to say the other end of
the conference call went very, very quiet at that point.
The issue has now been passed to yet another support employee (I refuse
to call these people engineers) who apparently wants to discuss the
issue further. What they can possibly need to discuss at this point I
have no idea but having told them (again) how to contact me I am waiting
to hear from them.
I also discovered that - despite the conference call - the latest
support ticket update from Microsoft claimed the issue could not be
repeated with IIS.
It appears that the issue has been passed to the IIS team which makes no
sense at all since all the evidence points to this being a WebDAV client
bug and I have been making that point since this whole sorry episode
started.
While I continue to appreciate the free MSDN license Microsoft kindly
provide to Apache committers, I must confess to being completely
unimpressed by Microsoft's support structures and count myself fortunate
that I don't have to run an IT infrastructure that relies on them.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 08/07/2015 16:22, André Warnier wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> With respect, you both don't get it. MS support is deliberately
>> pitiful, to emphasize the fact that MS software is by definition
>> bug-free and does not really need support.
>
> I've had several extremely frustrating telephone calls this afternoon
> where various levels of Microsoft staff repeating their position that
> the WebDAV client is "working as designed" and that prompting for
> authentication is a perfectly reasonable response when trying to connect
> to a server that does not require authentication but does have a cert
> issued by a CA the client doesn't trust.
>
> So far the minor security vulnerability (details to follow once
> Microsoft provide their final response in writing) is "working as
> designed" as well. Hmm. "Microsoft Windows - insecure by design". There
> is a nice strap line. I wonder if their marketing folks would like to
> use it. I'd be happy to offer them a royalty free license.
>
> I've asked MS to provide the justification for this position in writing
> - mainly because I intend writing up a blog post to make clear to those
> who haven't already figured it out that the Microsoft WebDAV client is,
> despite the improvements in recent Windows versions, still buggy and -
> more importantly - Microsoft are point blank refusing to fix obvious
> bugs and (minor) security vulnerabilities.
>
> I recall that someone on this list said that they had switched to a 3rd
> party WebDAV client and hadn't looked back since. Could that person
> remind me what that client was. I'd be happy to give it a plug in the
> blog post.
If that person was me, I was mentioning WebDrive
(http://www.southrivertech.com/products/webdrive/)
>
> I'll also be updating the Tomcat docs to make it clear that the
> Microsoft WebDAV client is unsupported and I'll be removing the WebDAV
> fix valve from Tomcat 9 onwards since it fixes bugs in old, unsupported
> MS WebDAV clients and there is no way to fix issues like the current one
> on the server side. I'll be asking httpd to add a similar note regarding
> the supportability of the MS WebDAV client.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 7/22/15 1:18 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 08/07/2015 16:22, André Warnier wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> With respect, you both don't get it. MS support is deliberately
>> pitiful, to emphasize the fact that MS software is by definition
>> bug-free and does not really need support.
>
> I've had several extremely frustrating telephone calls this
> afternoon where various levels of Microsoft staff repeating their
> position that the WebDAV client is "working as designed" and that
> prompting for authentication is a perfectly reasonable response
> when trying to connect to a server that does not require
> authentication but does have a cert issued by a CA the client
> doesn't trust.
Yep: "working as designed" means "we designed it to work with our own
products under the conditions we ave specified, and nuts to you if you
want something different." Otherwise known as the "standards be
damned" design principle. I don't know why anyone is surprised, here.
> So far the minor security vulnerability (details to follow once
> Microsoft provide their final response in writing) is "working as
> designed" as well. Hmm. "Microsoft Windows - insecure by design".
> There is a nice strap line. I wonder if their marketing folks would
> like to use it. I'd be happy to offer them a royalty free license.
>
> I've asked MS to provide the justification for this position in
> writing - mainly because I intend writing up a blog post to make
> clear to those who haven't already figured it out that the
> Microsoft WebDAV client is, despite the improvements in recent
> Windows versions, still buggy and - more importantly - Microsoft
> are point blank refusing to fix obvious bugs and (minor) security
> vulnerabilities.
>
> I recall that someone on this list said that they had switched to a
> 3rd party WebDAV client and hadn't looked back since. Could that
> person remind me what that client was. I'd be happy to give it a
> plug in the blog post.
South River Technologies' WebDrive. It's a remote filesystem driver
that creates a drive letter which maps to some remote share and
supports (proper) WebDAV(S) including proper file-locking (as well as
local caching of files with lots of configuration options),
(S)FTP/FTP(S), Amazon S3, Google Drive, DropBox, SharePoint, and
something called "OneDrive", which I've never heard of.
I've never used WebDrive for anything other than WebDAV; I'm not sure
how great it is for those other protocols, but I suspect it will
perform well. Their tech support folks were even kind enough to walk
one of my users through the installation and configuration of the
software when she called to ask how to download the installer.
http://www.southrivertech.com/products/webdrive/
(Note: I have no financial interest in SRT. I'm just a happy user of
their product.)
> I'll also be updating the Tomcat docs to make it clear that the
> Microsoft WebDAV client is unsupported and I'll be removing the
> WebDAV fix valve from Tomcat 9 onwards since it fixes bugs in old,
> unsupported MS WebDAV clients and there is no way to fix issues
> like the current one on the server side. I'll be asking httpd to
> add a similar note regarding the supportability of the MS WebDAV
> client.
+1
I just sent an email to the folks running http://webdav.org/ about
Tomcat itself as well as WebDrive.
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org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=hV9K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 08/07/2015 16:22, André Warnier wrote:
<snip />
> With respect, you both don't get it. MS support is deliberately
> pitiful, to emphasize the fact that MS software is by definition
> bug-free and does not really need support.
I've had several extremely frustrating telephone calls this afternoon
where various levels of Microsoft staff repeating their position that
the WebDAV client is "working as designed" and that prompting for
authentication is a perfectly reasonable response when trying to connect
to a server that does not require authentication but does have a cert
issued by a CA the client doesn't trust.
So far the minor security vulnerability (details to follow once
Microsoft provide their final response in writing) is "working as
designed" as well. Hmm. "Microsoft Windows - insecure by design". There
is a nice strap line. I wonder if their marketing folks would like to
use it. I'd be happy to offer them a royalty free license.
I've asked MS to provide the justification for this position in writing
- mainly because I intend writing up a blog post to make clear to those
who haven't already figured it out that the Microsoft WebDAV client is,
despite the improvements in recent Windows versions, still buggy and -
more importantly - Microsoft are point blank refusing to fix obvious
bugs and (minor) security vulnerabilities.
I recall that someone on this list said that they had switched to a 3rd
party WebDAV client and hadn't looked back since. Could that person
remind me what that client was. I'd be happy to give it a plug in the
blog post.
I'll also be updating the Tomcat docs to make it clear that the
Microsoft WebDAV client is unsupported and I'll be removing the WebDAV
fix valve from Tomcat 9 onwards since it fixes bugs in old, unsupported
MS WebDAV clients and there is no way to fix issues like the current one
on the server side. I'll be asking httpd to add a similar note regarding
the supportability of the MS WebDAV client.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
Posted by André Warnier <aw...@ice-sa.com>.
Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Mark,
>
> On 7/7/15 9:39 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 30/06/2015 21:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> This is probably off-topic now so marking as such.
>>>
>>> On 29/06/2015 14:29, André Warnier wrote:
>>>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2015 19:37, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/06/2015 11:56, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/06/2015 09:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prompting for authentication in response to an untrusted
>>>>>>> certificate is bizarre to say the least.
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> Progress, if you can call it that, has not been good. They have
>>> now asked for additional network traces since:
>>>
>>> <quote> ... to be able to understand what packets are sent by
>>> client and what response did Server generate for the specific
>>> packet, I would like to check a simultaneous trace on both
>>> communication endpoints </quote>
>>>
>>> I have just sent a very long, fairly stropy reply pointing out
>>> the complete pointlessness of this request - not least because
>>> the information they claim they don't have is right in front of
>>> them in the form of the sequence and acknowledgement numbers in
>>> the network trace.
>> This continues to drag on. The stropy e-mail got the issue
>> re-assigned to someone with marginally more clue. They put together
>> a test environment (with IIS instead of Tomcat) and then attempted
>> to demonstrate that the issue did not occur and hence it must be a
>> Tomcat problem.
>
> "Our non-standard client works perfectly well with our non-standard
> server. The fact that our non-standard client doesn't work with your
> standards-compliant server obviously points to your software as the
> problem."
>
> Nice tautology you got there. It would be a shame if something were to
> happen to it.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Well, if you're willing to continue to tilt at this particular
> windmill, it would be a great service to the world. I'm not hopeful,
> though, as WebDAV support in Microsoft Windows has degraded
> consistently over the past 10 years and never improved. I don't know
> why they even bother to /claim/ support for it anymore. Evidently,
> nobody in the Microsoft world gives a rats posterior about WebDAV...
> they all use SMB anyway.
>
>> However, once they had configured their environment to match my
>> original bug report (server using cert issued by CA client doesn't
>> trust, server configured not to require authentication) imagine my
>> lack of surprise when the problem was repeated with IIS. Needless
>> to say the other end of the conference call went very, very quiet
>> at that point.
>>
>> The issue has now been passed to yet another support employee (I
>> refuse to call these people engineers) who apparently wants to
>> discuss the issue further. What they can possibly need to discuss
>> at this point I have no idea but having told them (again) how to
>> contact me I am waiting to hear from them.
>>
>> I also discovered that - despite the conference call - the latest
>> support ticket update from Microsoft claimed the issue could not
>> be repeated with IIS.
>>
>> It appears that the issue has been passed to the IIS team which
>> makes no sense at all since all the evidence points to this being a
>> WebDAV client bug and I have been making that point since this
>> whole sorry episode started.
>
> The good news is that the IIS team is likely to refuse to accept
> responsibility for the bug (because, by definition, IIS contains zero
> bugs) and likely to pass the buck back to the WebDAV client team. If
> you catch them at just the right time, you may be able to show MS how
> to do their own jobs.
>
>> While I continue to appreciate the free MSDN license Microsoft
>> kindly provide to Apache committers, I must confess to being
>> completely unimpressed by Microsoft's support structures and count
>> myself fortunate that I don't have to run an IT infrastructure that
>> relies on them.
>
> +1
>
With respect, you both don't get it. MS support is deliberately pitiful, to emphasize the
fact that MS software is by definition bug-free and does not really need support.
And to really bring the point home, MS seems to have plans to not name the next version
"Windows" anymore, but invent some other name. Now /that/ should allow them to definitely
start with a clean slate in their support database.
There might be an idea for Tomcat there.. "Bulldog" ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
Posted by Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 7/7/15 9:39 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 30/06/2015 21:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> This is probably off-topic now so marking as such.
>>
>> On 29/06/2015 14:29, André Warnier wrote:
>>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2015 19:37, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 22/06/2015 11:56, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/06/2015 09:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prompting for authentication in response to an untrusted
>>>>>> certificate is bizarre to say the least.
>
> <snip/>
>
>> Progress, if you can call it that, has not been good. They have
>> now asked for additional network traces since:
>>
>> <quote> ... to be able to understand what packets are sent by
>> client and what response did Server generate for the specific
>> packet, I would like to check a simultaneous trace on both
>> communication endpoints </quote>
>>
>> I have just sent a very long, fairly stropy reply pointing out
>> the complete pointlessness of this request - not least because
>> the information they claim they don't have is right in front of
>> them in the form of the sequence and acknowledgement numbers in
>> the network trace.
>
> This continues to drag on. The stropy e-mail got the issue
> re-assigned to someone with marginally more clue. They put together
> a test environment (with IIS instead of Tomcat) and then attempted
> to demonstrate that the issue did not occur and hence it must be a
> Tomcat problem.
"Our non-standard client works perfectly well with our non-standard
server. The fact that our non-standard client doesn't work with your
standards-compliant server obviously points to your software as the
problem."
Nice tautology you got there. It would be a shame if something were to
happen to it.
*sigh*
Well, if you're willing to continue to tilt at this particular
windmill, it would be a great service to the world. I'm not hopeful,
though, as WebDAV support in Microsoft Windows has degraded
consistently over the past 10 years and never improved. I don't know
why they even bother to /claim/ support for it anymore. Evidently,
nobody in the Microsoft world gives a rats posterior about WebDAV...
they all use SMB anyway.
> However, once they had configured their environment to match my
> original bug report (server using cert issued by CA client doesn't
> trust, server configured not to require authentication) imagine my
> lack of surprise when the problem was repeated with IIS. Needless
> to say the other end of the conference call went very, very quiet
> at that point.
>
> The issue has now been passed to yet another support employee (I
> refuse to call these people engineers) who apparently wants to
> discuss the issue further. What they can possibly need to discuss
> at this point I have no idea but having told them (again) how to
> contact me I am waiting to hear from them.
>
> I also discovered that - despite the conference call - the latest
> support ticket update from Microsoft claimed the issue could not
> be repeated with IIS.
>
> It appears that the issue has been passed to the IIS team which
> makes no sense at all since all the evidence points to this being a
> WebDAV client bug and I have been making that point since this
> whole sorry episode started.
The good news is that the IIS team is likely to refuse to accept
responsibility for the bug (because, by definition, IIS contains zero
bugs) and likely to pass the buck back to the WebDAV client team. If
you catch them at just the right time, you may be able to show MS how
to do their own jobs.
> While I continue to appreciate the free MSDN license Microsoft
> kindly provide to Apache committers, I must confess to being
> completely unimpressed by Microsoft's support structures and count
> myself fortunate that I don't have to run an IT infrastructure that
> relies on them.
+1
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org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=+Gqo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org