On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 03:36 -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > I'm afraid this is not suitable for us. We need to be able to define the
> > > policy somewhere in /etc, where the user is not able to change it (only
> > > the system administrator).
> > > Also the main intention to have a single place t
- Original Message -
> On 17/07/14 13:49, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > I agree. The patch didn't take any configuration possibility from the user.
> > The users would be able to configure whatever in the same way they were
> > before.
> >
> > Please really see some of those patches I sent. The di
- Original Message -
> I'm not sure, but looking at the patch, it /does/ seem like it tries
> to override the user settings, which IMO should not happen. If that is
> indeed the case, I do not support this patch either.
Please describe why do you think it "seems like it tries" to override
I'm not sure, but looking at the patch, it /does/ seem like it tries
to override the user settings, which IMO should not happen. If that is
indeed the case, I do not support this patch either.
@Giuseppe: About the failing test, that particular test seems to have
some weird timing problems. I'm ass
On 17/07/14 13:49, Tomas Hozza wrote:
I agree. The patch didn't take any configuration possibility from the user.
The users would be able to configure whatever in the same way they were before.
Please really see some of those patches I sent. The discussion was little
bit confusing at some points
Tomas Hozza writes:
> I agree. The patch didn't take any configuration possibility from the user.
> The users would be able to configure whatever in the same way they were
> before.
>
> Please really see some of those patches I sent. The discussion was little
> bit confusing at some points ~ lik
- Original Message -
> Tomas Hozza writes:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:37:23 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> >> > - Original Message -
> >> > > On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> >> > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Toma
Tomas Hozza writes:
> - Original Message -
>> On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:37:23 Tomas Hozza wrote:
>> > - Original Message -
>> > > On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
>> > > > > I'm afraid this i
On 11/07/14 10:30, Tomas Hozza wrote:
I think you misunderstood me. My intention was NOT to handle PFS or any other
method
specially. The intention is to replace ALL occurrences of hard-coded ciphers
priority
list strings with value defined when running ./configure.
That's why I don't want to
- Original Message -
> On Friday 11 July 2014 04:30:04 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > > On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:37:23 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > > > >
On Friday 11 July 2014 04:30:04 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:37:23 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Toma
- Original Message -
> On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:37:23 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > > > I'm afraid this is not suitable for us. We nee
- Original Message -
> Tomas Hozza writes:
>
> >> What do you think about extending --secure-protocol and having a runtime
> >> option instead of a compile time option ? Users could set the system wide
> >> default value in /etc/wgetrc and people are able to override it through
> >> ~/.wg
On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:37:23 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid this is not suitable for us. We need to be able to define
> > > > the
>
Am Dienstag, 8. Juli 2014, 16:57:35 schrieb Giuseppe Scrivano:
> Tomas Hozza writes:
> >> What do you think about extending --secure-protocol and having a runtime
> >> option instead of a compile time option ? Users could set the system wide
> >> default value in /etc/wgetrc and people are able to
- Original Message -
> On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > I'm afraid this is not suitable for us. We need to be able to define the
> > > policy somewhere in /etc, where the user is not able to change it (
On Tuesday 08 July 2014 16:14:42 Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > I'm afraid this is not suitable for us. We need to be able to define the
> > policy somewhere in /etc, where the user is not able to change it (only
> > the system administrator).
>
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> I'm afraid this is not suitable for us. We need to be able to define the
> policy somewhere in /etc, where the user is not able to change it (only
> the system administrator).
>
I hope can also prevent the user from running his own wget
Tomas Hozza writes:
>> What do you think about extending --secure-protocol and having a runtime
>> option instead of a compile time option ? Users could set the system wide
>> default value in /etc/wgetrc and people are able to override it through
>> ~/.wgetrc or --secure-protocol.
>
> Hi Tim.
>
- Original Message -
> On Tuesday 08 July 2014 04:43:20 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > > On 07/07/14 21:46, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > In Fedora we are moving to a system-wide policy of used
> > > > ciphers. [1] Therefore we need wget to be
On Tuesday 08 July 2014 04:43:20 Tomas Hozza wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > On 07/07/14 21:46, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > In Fedora we are moving to a system-wide policy of used
> > > ciphers. [1] Therefore we need wget to be compiled with other
> > > than hard-coded se
- Original Message -
> On 07/07/14 21:46, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > In Fedora we are moving to a system-wide policy of used
> > ciphers. [1] Therefore we need wget to be compiled with other
> > than hard-coded set of ciphers when using OpenSSL.
> >
> > I'm attaching patch adding ne
On 07/07/14 21:46, Tomas Hozza wrote:
Hi.
In Fedora we are moving to a system-wide policy of used
ciphers. [1] Therefore we need wget to be compiled with other
than hard-coded set of ciphers when using OpenSSL.
I'm attaching patch adding new configure option
--with-openssl-ciphers-list=LIST, wh
23 matches
Mail list logo
