Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 08 Sep 1998 21:26:47 -0700
From:      Graeme Tait <graeme@echidna.com>
To:        Christopher Raven <c.raven@ukonline.co.uk>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc:        info@boatbooks.com
Subject:   Re: Apache & Verisign
Message-ID:  <35F60387.58A6@echidna.com>
References:  <35F5AFFB.4631D726@ukonline.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christopher Raven wrote:
> 
> I don't know if anyone knew about it, but I just noticed that verisign
> now supports apache
> 
> http://www.verisign.com/guide/apache/index.html


Indeed! I would guess that Verisign could not resist the potential Apache 
market, nor did they want to lose it to competitors.

However, there is, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong 
on any of this), one catch if you use a free version of SSLeay, and it is 
curious that Verisign (AFAIK) are silent on this point. I'll repeat what I 
posted here previously:

"Just be aware that for using SSLeay in the US, you need a BSafe license
from RSA (and I believe you are required to substitute their cipher code
for that in SSLeay). There is a special license plan for non-profits. For
individual commercial use, getting an RSA license is a practical
impossibility as I understand it."

Stronghold (the Verisign link appears to be incorrect - it should be 
http://www.c2.net/) and Raven (http://raven.covalent.net/ - no relation, I 
assume?), mentioned in Verisign's info at 
http://www.verisign.com/guide/apache/apache.html, provide RSA licensing 
within their products.

I write this in the light of shopping around for SSL/Apache software for use 
in the US. It is rather frustrating that a great piece of free software like 
Apache (which can run on a great free OS like FreeBSD) is hobbled for 
serious commercial use in the US by the effective lack of free SSL support, 
when all the required software is available for free. Of course, it could 
never quite be free with RSA licensing required, but I'm sure that the RSA 
license fee built into all the commercial SSL server packages is a small 
fraction of their cost - probably of the same order as a typical shareware 
fee.

The commercial products Verisign mention are expensive. Raven ($357) is as I 
understand it is based on SSLeay, and not much different from what you can 
have for free, but with RSA licensing included. Stronghold is even more 
expensive ($995), uses superior proprietary SSL code, and has many added 
features - ostensibly a fine product. But unfortunately it hobbles Apache by 
being issued in binary form, and by lagging Apache releases. They have only 
just released a version incorporating V1.30 Apache, and that in a rather 
unsatisfactory form.

Apache make much of US export restrictions constraining SSL-enabled 
distributions, but as far as I can see that is a red herring, and the only 
real issue preventing the issuance of a minimal cost Apache/SSLeay 
distribution is the creation of a mechanism for paying RSA a reasonable 
license fee. The lifting of US export restrictions on encryption code will 
do nothing to change that fact.

I apologize if this long-winded post is a bit off-topic, but I'm hoping 
someone can point to some source of hope in my quest for low-cost SSL.

(And I'm restraining myself from getting into the issue of why SSL 
certificates should cost so much.)


-- 
Graeme Tait - Echidna


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35F60387.58A6>