Skip to main content

apache 2.2 - How do I configure Apache2 to allow more than one SSL Certificate on the same IP?











Lets say I have two sites that are currently configured on the same box in VirtualHost blocks . How do I configure Apache so that I can put both sites under two different SSL certs?



http://a.com => https://b.com
http://b.com => https://a.com


An answer containing a link to a good tutorial on setting this up would be fantastic.



Thanks.



Answer



You don't. At least not yet, not on live web servers.



SSL negotiation, key exchange, sending of the certificate and all that, is done before the request is transmitted -- that is, before the server even knows which site the client is trying to connect to. The site has to serve the right certificate, though, or it will get flagged by the browser as fraudulent.



So, SSL requires one certificate per IP/port combo. No way around that, short of changing SSL itself. If you want multiple SSL sites with different certs on the same port, you'll need different IPs for each. (Although SSL sites are typically on port 443, for reference...)



Any way you might find around this will require that both sites share a certificate. And as far as SAN certs go, they seem to run between 2x and 4x as much as regular SSL certs -- and probably require lots of validation. If you don't own both domains, good luck getting one cert for them both.



If you want to try this, you may want to look at http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/NameBasedSSLVHostsWithSNI -- it explains a bit on how to set up TLS virtual hosts in Apache under one IP, with different certificates for each one. But note i said TLS, not SSL -- there's no way under SSL, and it's not guaranteed to work even with TLS, as the capability requires TLS support (and an optional extension thereto) enabled in both client and server. It being optional, clients don't have to provide the server name during handshaking (and XP and many mobile browsers are particularly prone not to), making whatever sites share that IP inaccessible to them. If this is going to be for sites you intend for people to actually look at, IMO it's not an option.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able