From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 16 21:45:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA12407 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:45:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12402 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:45:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xiBkN-0001Pw-00; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:10:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:10:15 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, softweyr@xmission.com Subject: Re: Support for secure http protocols In-Reply-To: <34973506.B112548D@xmission.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Wes Peters wrote: > So, my question is: if I have the capability (time, interest, etc) to > implement only ONE secure http transport, which one should it be? There > is a draft ieft standard for S-HTTP, but Netscape et al HTTP-SSL seems to > have garnered more support in the real world. SSL. It already exists as an RFC. It can ecapsulate nearly any socket protocol (watch for SSL imap). It also works with every browers now. You can also use it now via the apache-ssl port. Just get a certificate. Tom