search for: separataly

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "separataly".

2019 Oct 12
2
easy way to stop old ssl's
...his at all. Just ship a new HTTPS configuration to each server. Apache loads all *.conf files in its configuration directory, so you might be able to just add another file to the existing config set. If not, then replace the existing config file instead. Instead of configuring every application separataly it would be nice if "accepted levels of security" could be set system wide. With 8 it seems there is such a thing https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/security_hardening/using-the-system-wide-cryptographic-policies_security-hardening Although I...
2019 Oct 12
0
easy way to stop old ssl's
On Oct 12, 2019, at 4:06 AM, Markus Falb <markus.falb at fasel.at> wrote: > > On 11.10.19 22:40, Warren Young wrote: >> Just ship a new HTTPS configuration to each server. > > Instead of configuring every application separataly it would be nice if > "accepted levels of security" could be set system wide. ?which implies that there is some authority that defines ?accepted level? the way you?d do it if you could be bothered to think through all of the use cases, combinations, and implications. Who is that cent...
2019 Oct 11
4
easy way to stop old ssl's
HI all, When CentOS 7 was created things like SSLv2 TLSv1 TLSv1.1 etc... were all OK, but now they have fallen out of favor for various reasons. Updating to CentOS 7.7 does not automatically disable these types of items from apache - is there a script that is available that can be ran to bring a box up to current "accepted" levels ? Or is that an edit by hand, do it yourself on all your
2019 Oct 15
1
easy way to stop old ssl's
....10.19 19:33, Warren Young wrote: > On Oct 12, 2019, at 4:06 AM, Markus Falb <markus.falb at fasel.at> wrote: >> >> On 11.10.19 22:40, Warren Young wrote: >>> Just ship a new HTTPS configuration to each server. >> >> Instead of configuring every application separataly it would be nice if >> "accepted levels of security" could be set system wide. > > ?which implies that there is some authority that defines ?accepted level? the way you?d do it if you could be bothered to think through all of the use cases, combinations, and implications. &gt...