https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63080
--- Comment #3 from HanLi ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #1)
> I would recommend adding a new configuration option which specifies which
> strategy to use: legacy, rfc7239, or "both" where both
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63080
--- Comment #2 from HanLi ---
Hi all,
I have implemented RFC7239 as I understand it, but as this is my first time
implementing RFC functionality, I may not have a good understanding of RFC and
may not have taken some things into account. I
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66134
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66134
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66150
--- Comment #2 from Eric Covener ---
Similarly unixd_set_global_mutex_perms is a Apache 2.2 symbol, so mod_jk is not
built for Apache 2.4. Unfortunately when a native symbol is missing, we don't
get far enough to directly report an error
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66150
Rainer Jung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66150
Rainer Jung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|while starting Apache |Cannot load mod_jk.so
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66150
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Jung ---
"wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32" means you are likely trying to load a 32 Bit
compilation of mod_jk into a 64 compilatoin of Apache httpd. This does not
work. Make sure you are using a consis
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66150
Rainer Jung changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|mod_auth|mod_jk
Product|Apache httpd
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65565
Chaitanya kanagala changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chaitu56...@gmail.com
--
You
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64848
--- Comment #16 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Vishwanath Karra from comment #15)
> We are seeing this issue with 8.5.72 - is there some other patch needed for
> the 8.5 codeline ? The fix is confirmed for 9.0.40.
Are you sur
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64848
--- Comment #15 from Vishwanath Karra ---
We are seeing this issue with 8.5.72 - is there some other patch needed for the
8.5 codeline ? The fix is confirmed for 9.0.40.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66141
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142
Bug ID: 66142
Summary: Encounter "ejectedExecutionException: Queue capacity
is full" when #busy thread is less than
minSpareThreads
Product: Tomcat 8
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66141
--- Comment #1 from Jano John Akim Franke ---
Example output of test-encoding.sh showing file transfer with retry resulting
in modified file contents:
Contents UTF-8: ...TEST
1. try: TEST(timeout waiting for 3 bytes)
2. try
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66141
Jano John Akim Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||RFC
--
You are receiving
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66141
Jano John Akim Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS|Windows NT |Linux
Hardware|PC
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66141
Bug ID: 66141
Summary: useBomIfPresent removes UTF-BOM without modifying HTTP
Content-Length
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.26
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66134
Bug ID: 66134
Summary: TomcatAdminRoles ignored when using installer
configuration file
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.64
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
--- Comment #2 from psakkanan ---
Please remember that this issue would pop as random login failure ( on
Kubernetes or similar cloud infra) mostly on prod/deployed env.
It took weeks for us to deduce this issue from random login error
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
Do we want to support this? It would mean finding a way to serialize:
- the expected session ID (part of the CSRF protection)
- the saved request
This looks to be doable although it would some effort
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66129
--- Comment #2 from Simon ---
Sorry for that.
For tracking if someone ends here looking for an answer I created a bug in
Tomee :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3982
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62611
--- Comment #11 from HanLi ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #10)
Hi Christopher,
> The quality of this patch/PR is low. Several unresolved comments have been
> made on the PR already.
>
> There isn't any pro
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66129
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66129
Bug ID: 66129
Summary: ServletContainerInitializer ignored by Tomee because
of jar name and web-fragment "ordering"
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.63
Ha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62611
--- Comment #10 from Christopher Schultz ---
The quality of this patch/PR is low. Several unresolved comments have been made
on the PR already.
There isn't any proper resource-management.
The CompressFileUtils class appears to be added twice
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62611
--- Comment #9 from HanLi ---
hi all,
Can I continue with this task based on PR#223?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
--- Comment #4 from Tim Funk ---
True - if that is the case - there is this: /manager/status?XML=true which is
xml, not JSON.
I'd wonder what additional metrics users were interested that are missing. (As
well as if its worth
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
If we want to support provision of metrics to unprivileged or minimally
privileged users then I think we should consider a mechanism that doesn't
involve those users providing the JMX query that gets
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
--- Comment #2 from Tim Funk ---
100% agreed. I definitely need to add more to the docs to call this out.
For example - in manager-howto.xml - one tweak was the say WARNING instead of
NOTE.
I was hoping to hit the use case of people using
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
--- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat ---
This enhancement is risky since if there's a problem somehow it will be an
immediate RCE CVE (once people start assuming they can safely expose JMX to the
world).
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66125
Bug ID: 66125
Summary: JMProxy - enhance security restrictions
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
psakkanan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|j_security_check returns|j_security_check returns
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120
Bug ID: 66120
Summary: j_security_check returns 408 if j_security_check
request lands on different tomcat server from the
original server
Product: Tomcat 9
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62245
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60597
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56448
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56522
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62723
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56026
--- Comment #17 from Remy Maucherat ---
(In reply to Lukas Lieb from comment #16)
> So my question is more is there anything planed or an open enhancement
> request to change this?
As Mark said: "You'll have to take up your co
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56026
--- Comment #16 from lukas.l...@axonivy.com ---
Hi all
I've run currently in the same problem with Tomcat 9.0.63.
In my case there are not really concurrent calls but sometimes multiple calls
shortly after each other, which also can result
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65401
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66104
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66104
--- Comment #1 from HanLi ---
the pr： https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/521
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66104
Bug ID: 66104
Summary: Check for the existence of the log directory before
executing the cleanup task at startup
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66103
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66103
Bug ID: 66103
Summary: MemoryRealm documentation needs to be reference file
watching support
Product: Tomcat 8
Version: 8.5.79
Hardware: PC
Status: NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
--- Comment #2 from PatriceS ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #1)
> I'll set up a Google account for the Tomcat security team's address.
Perfect, thank you.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
I'll set up a Google account for the Tomcat security team's address.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101
Bug ID: 66101
Summary: Initial integration of tomcat into OSS-Fuzz
Product: Tomcat 10
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65118
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEEDINFO
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65951
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
Fixed in:
- 9.0.x for 9.0.64 onwards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65951
--- Comment #5 from Matt M ---
The fix for 9.0.x is missing a fix to this file:
res/bnd/tomcat-embed-el.jar.tmp.bnd
The fix for 10.0.x has it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|NEEDINFO
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #3 from jfclere ---
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/517 should fix the problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076
--- Comment #16 from Phil Clay ---
Good news! The test has been running with no failures continuously since my
last comment. I'll keep letting it run today. But I'm pretty confident that
the problem is fixed since the test would normally
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #2 from jfclere ---
I think the logic looks for something like:
-BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-
Proc-Type: 4,ENCRYPTED
DEK-Info: AES-256-CBC,E9F2FB791E9BAAEC7BEE71DA73CA35F3
4LBH2H34b4BW0C2v8VYkp8/MCWPmW7iJnuqvH103DxnFV
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
--- Comment #1 from Remy Maucherat ---
This change was part of the PR, and I don't see any reason for it ...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089
Bug ID: 66089
Summary: Tomcat 9.0.63 won't start when used with a SSL
certificate containing a RSA Private Key
Product: Tomcat 9
Version: 9.0.63
Hardware: All
1 - 100 of 44499 matches
Mail list logo
