-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/03/2016 12:16 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> That would be a simple fix to help avoid breaking compatibility for
> users on upgrade to 2.8. Regardless of what the ideal behavior
> should be, the current behavior in 2.8 is different and obviously
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:44:29PM -0500, Partha Aji wrote:
> Question is whether the default option be to skip verification and one has
> pass a separate flag to
> enable verification OR the other way round (I am ok either way.)
Defaulting to secure is a good policy.
--
Randy Barlow
irc: bow
I think when you are breaking SSL's verification aspect, that should be an
optional setting and not the default.
- Kodiak
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Partha Aji wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> | From: "Michael Hrivnak"
> | To: "Bryan Kearney"
> | Cc: "pulp-list"
> | Sent: We
- Original Message -
| From: "Michael Hrivnak"
| To: "Bryan Kearney"
| Cc: "pulp-list"
| Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 12:16:23 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Pulp 2.6 vs 2.8 event notifier question
|
| I'm glad we're clarifying use cases, but back to agreeing on a solution:
| Woul
I'm glad we're clarifying use cases, but back to agreeing on a solution: Would
it be sufficient for katello if we added an option to that notifier to skip
cert verification, but make the default behavior to do the validation?
Would anyone object to that?
That would be a simple fix to help avoid br
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:32:58PM +0100, kamil kapturkiewicz wrote:
> Warning: group pulp-server-qpid does not exist.
Did you remember to add our yum repository?
--
Randy Barlow
irc: bowlofeggs
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Pulp-lis
Hi,
I trying to install Pulp on CentOS7 as mentioned on:
https://pulp.readthedocs.org/en/2.7-release/user-guide/installation.html
but when I tried to install pulp with all dependencies, then got this error:
[root@pulp ~]# yum groupinstall pulp-server-qpid
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
There is no i
On 02/03/2016 09:55 AM, Eric Helms wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Barlow"
To: "Eric Helms"
Cc: "Jeremy Cline" , pulp-list@redhat.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:46:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Pulp 2.6 vs 2.8 event notifier question
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:40:
- Original Message -
> From: "Randy Barlow"
> To: "Eric Helms"
> Cc: "Jeremy Cline" , pulp-list@redhat.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:46:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Pulp 2.6 vs 2.8 event notifier question
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:40:09AM -0500, Eric Helms wrote:
>
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:40:09AM -0500, Eric Helms wrote:
> Not to be argumentative, but that seems like a cop out. I would think as a
> user I should be able to provide you with the CA certificate that should be
> used for verification for a given event notification. I realize this is a
> dep
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeremy Cline"
> To: pulp-list@redhat.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 8:55:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Pulp 2.6 vs 2.8 event notifier question
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 02/03/2016 08:51 AM, Eric Helms wrote:
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/03/2016 08:51 AM, Eric Helms wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> In the case where verification is occurring, how does a user who
> does not have access to the box Pulp is on, give Pulp the proper
> certificate so that Pulp can verify the URL being hit?
Just
Howdy,
In the case where verification is occurring, how does a user who does not have
access to the box Pulp is on, give Pulp the proper certificate so that Pulp can
verify the URL being hit?
Eric
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Hrivnak"
> To: "Partha Aji"
> Cc: "pulp-list"
Good point. In theory there shouldn't be any sensitive information in the
POSTed data, but I can imagine some users wanting to maintain strict
guarantees that no information leaks out through a man-in-the-middle
attack. This notifier also has the option to provide username and password
credentials
14 matches
Mail list logo
