Trying to sum up what you are saying: mod_md 2.4.40 does not introduce a new 
problem, but testing with it exposed an issue that affects both. There is no 
regression in 2.4.40.

As to the problem: the SSLCertificateChainFile directive made mod_ssl fail in 
conjunction with mod_md and an empty MDomain. Probably, the fallback 
certificate was conflicting with the additional chain file. This fallback is 
installed until mod_md gets the "real" certificate from Lets Encrypt.

I try to add a test case for that and see how we can improve the interworking.

- Stefan

> Am 05.08.2019 um 10:12 schrieb Jan Ehrhardt <[email protected]>:
> 
> Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sun, 04 Aug 2019 01:26:27
> +0200):
>> Maybe some config changes are needed, but then they should be clearly
>> documented in the change log. The trouble with this release is that the
>> problem with mod_md will only show up when the first certificate has to
>> be renewed.
> 
> Countless tests later I guess I have found out what was wrong. The
> server that I used for testing previously had a certificate by
> letsencrypt-win-simple. Back in the old days you had to load the
> intermediate certificate (Let's Encrypt Authority X3) with a
> SSLCertificateChainFile statement. The server was still doing that. The
> mod_md in 2.4.39 did not bother and just created a new certificate.
> 
> However, the mod_md in 2.4.40 stumbled over it, despite the fact that
> the intermediate certificate was exactly the same that mod_md would have
> loaded.
> 
> @icing: I tried it once again to see what is in the logs:
> 
> | AH02572: Failed to configure at least one certificate and key for 
> example.com:443
> | SSL Library Error: error:140A80B1:SSL routines:SSL_CTX_check_private_key:no 
> certificate assigned
> 
> This gave me no clue at all why it failed. And it was not Apache that
> stumbled. With a valid MDomain certificate mod_md and the
> SSLCertificateChainFile could happily co-exist. So without the test to
> remove the /md dir I would have run into troubles at the moment when the
> certificates had to be renewed (somewhere in September).
> -- 
> Jan
> 

Reply via email to