<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shared IP, multiple vhosts and multiple SSL certificates on Apache</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4</link>
	<description>Just my notes on things I&#039;ve been busy with...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:31:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-725</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:55:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-725</guid>
		<description>You should change your wording as it is misleading. You did not &quot;solve&quot; anything. You are just bypassing the limitation of SSL by having it redirect to port 444.
Traffic will still be sent to port 80 first on vhost 2, the rewrite rule will catch it and then send it on to port 444.

I&#039;m thinking this could be potentially dangerous at some point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You should change your wording as it is misleading. You did not &#8220;solve&#8221; anything. You are just bypassing the limitation of SSL by having it redirect to port 444.<br />
Traffic will still be sent to port 80 first on vhost 2, the rewrite rule will catch it and then send it on to port 444.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m thinking this could be potentially dangerous at some point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orkolpoltao Benz de Goldstheyn-Rothschild</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-239</link>
		<dc:creator>Orkolpoltao Benz de Goldstheyn-Rothschild</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:21:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-239</guid>
		<description>http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/rewrite/rewrite_guide_advanced.html#mass-virtual-hosting</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/rewrite/rewrite_guide_advanced.html#mass-virtual-hosting" rel="nofollow">http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/rewrite/rewrite_guide_advanced.html#mass-virtual-hosting</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Sharkey</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Sharkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-206</guid>
		<description>However, the sweon solution does not allow for multiple cert files, which I think limits you to using only sub-domains unless you have a cert that covers multiple fqdns? Right? Or am I missing something? 

This solution, although it consumes ports, does allow you to use the non-standard ports pretty transparently to the user, as well as allowing separate certs for each fqdn.

--Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>However, the sweon solution does not allow for multiple cert files, which I think limits you to using only sub-domains unless you have a cert that covers multiple fqdns? Right? Or am I missing something? </p>
<p>This solution, although it consumes ports, does allow you to use the non-standard ports pretty transparently to the user, as well as allowing separate certs for each fqdn.</p>
<p>&#8211;Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ric</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-203</link>
		<dc:creator>Ric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-203</guid>
		<description>This requires an additional port for each virtual host and a restart of apache each time you add one.
The sweon solution uses a map which can be updated and require no restart and only one port.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This requires an additional port for each virtual host and a restart of apache each time you add one.<br />
The sweon solution uses a map which can be updated and require no restart and only one port.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drax</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>drax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Ah ok, I understand your setup. You must make sure no user submits data to the http:// version (like a form) because it *will* work (transparently of course).
Good idea though, I will use it for those lazy users ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah ok, I understand your setup. You must make sure no user submits data to the http:// version (like a form) because it *will* work (transparently of course).<br />
Good idea though, I will use it for those lazy users <img src='http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guido</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Guido</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Not entirely. It is only a little trick, when people &#039;forget&#039; to use the https:// and the alternative port number. All requests for a certain http://www.xyz.com/&lt;name&gt; are then automatically rewritten to the https:// address.
For instance, when I visit http://www.xyz.com/mail and I have a rewrite rule for that location, my browser address bar will show me https://www.xyz.com:444/mail. 
Another way of looking at it is that with this .htaccess method, you essentially deny access to the unsecured http:// location, and force the use of https://</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not entirely. It is only a little trick, when people &#8216;forget&#8217; to use the https:// and the alternative port number. All requests for a certain <a href="http://www.xyz.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.xyz.com/</a><name> are then automatically rewritten to the https:// address.<br />
For instance, when I visit <a href="http://www.xyz.com/mail" rel="nofollow">http://www.xyz.com/mail</a> and I have a rewrite rule for that location, my browser address bar will show me <a href="https://www.xyz.com:444/mail" rel="nofollow">https://www.xyz.com:444/mail</a>.<br />
Another way of looking at it is that with this .htaccess method, you essentially deny access to the unsecured http:// location, and force the use of https://</name></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drax</title>
		<link>http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>drax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.vanstormbroek.nl/blog/?p=4#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Hi,

Just to point out... The point of SSL is for data to be encrypted. With the technique above, the user first goes to a HTTP site, then gets redirected to a HTTPS site on a particular port. Am I right?
So the data is send in cleartext to the server, the server redirects the clients, and the clients re-sends the data, via https.
This defeats the whole point of SSL does it not?

Thanks for the link</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Just to point out&#8230; The point of SSL is for data to be encrypted. With the technique above, the user first goes to a HTTP site, then gets redirected to a HTTPS site on a particular port. Am I right?<br />
So the data is send in cleartext to the server, the server redirects the clients, and the clients re-sends the data, via https.<br />
This defeats the whole point of SSL does it not?</p>
<p>Thanks for the link</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
