Skip to content

Provide a hook for arbitrary SSL verification methods #244

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
Manishearth opened this issue Jan 12, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

Provide a hook for arbitrary SSL verification methods #244

Manishearth opened this issue Jan 12, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@Manishearth
Copy link
Contributor

Currently we use a VerifyCallback, however there's a lot of in built verification in SslContext (eg you can just provide it with a root CA file and it does the rest). Making HttpConnector take a fn(&mut SslContext) would be more useful (one can still attach verify callbacks directly, so no functionality is lost)

I have a pre-unboxed closure patch here, if its design feels okay I can move it to unboxed closures.

@seanmonstar
Copy link
Member

Makes sense to me!

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015, 10:37 AM Manish Goregaokar notifications@github.com
wrote:

Currently we use a VerifyCallback, however there's a lot of in built
verification in SslContext (eg you can just provide it with a root CA
file and it does the rest). Making HttpConnector take a fn(&mut
SslContext) would be more useful (one can still attach verify callbacks
directly, so no functionality is lost)

I have a pre-unboxed closure patch here
Manishearth@a815cdd,
if its design feels okay I can


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#244.

Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/hyper that referenced this issue Jan 14, 2015
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/hyper that referenced this issue Jan 14, 2015
seanmonstar added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2015
Allow more generic SSL verification (fixes #244)
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants