Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: Upgrade to 0.9.6e. Make that 0.9.6f, released today. :) --Cliff __ Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org User Support Mailing List

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: Make that 0.9.6f, released today. :) That's what I get for not reading all of my email before responding to any of it. 0.9.6g was also released today. Sigh. :) __ Apache Interface

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Maurizio Marini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 09 August 2002 04:27 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: Upgrade to 0.9.6e. Make that 0.9.6f, released today. :) g, just a few minutes ago.. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6

RE: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Xiao, Wei
Title: RE: Apache 2.039 Followed your instruction, finally got every configuration done. But server won't start with following message in error_log, [Fri Aug 09 11:49:29 2002] [warn] Init: PRNG still contains not sufficient entropy! [Fri Aug 09 11:49:32 2002] [error] Init: Failed to generate

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: That's what I get for not reading all of my email before responding to any of it. 0.9.6g was also released today. Sigh. :) I guess today was the day for releases. Apache 2.0.40 is now out as well. --Cliff

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread R. DuFresne
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: That's what I get for not reading all of my email before responding to any of it. 0.9.6g was also released today. Sigh. :) I guess today was the day for releases. Apache 2.0.40 is now out as well.

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread R. DuFresne
This is a security fix release for those using apache in Cygwin environments! quote Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 22:07:52 +0100 (BST) From: Mark J Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Full Disclosure [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vuln-Dev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Apache 2.0

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-09 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, R. DuFresne wrote: Any word on if this compiles on those older linux kernels as the previous release was a total dud in that realm? Probably no change. But FWIW, I believe one of our developers tried it on an older kernel and it worked fine for him... if you could

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-08 Thread EdwardSPL
Gregg Andrew wrote: Openssl.org version 0.9.6e Do you know what different between 0.9.6b and 0.9.6e, Because I knew there are some of users they are using 0.9.6b, I think 0.9.6b is an older version... But if I use the new version of Apache ( eg : 1.3.26 ), so... use 0.9.6e is good ? I was

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-08 Thread Cliff Woolley
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know what different between 0.9.6b and 0.9.6e Among other things, there are important security fixes in 0.9.6e (for remotely exploitable bugs in 0.9.6d and earlier versions). Upgrade to 0.9.6e. --Cliff

Re: Apache 2.039

2002-08-08 Thread EdwardSPL
Cliff Woolley wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you know what different between 0.9.6b and 0.9.6e Among other things, there are important security fixes in 0.9.6e (for remotely exploitable bugs in 0.9.6d and earlier versions). Upgrade to 0.9.6e. So, do you agree