From nobody Fri Jan 20 11:41:53 2023 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NyyJj6nXdz2v3M5 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:41:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NyyJj4lqQz3Pg6; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:41:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from [10.1.2.18] (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 30KBfr0K022230 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:41:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfence.it; s=202301; t=1674214915; bh=wm+OzueeA2iT6mJQv2etvj7ILdL7IVOkoCUG7Ogtw7E=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=co/zPy/kAaY43SHZ48D4wE2dlCEPDYYqt0uzJTANtds8aJBHzUJCnPNJH8PQCMJQe dEukwTyUs+kTZa+fbAjWO+y4PKPQA4MX1Yxg7mK5z1NCa7ICl+oCABDntMOIFCwX3f GutPwmjbpKTXVgl88JTR0tEy2buqJUWx8AjHEc3I= X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152] claimed to be [10.1.2.18] Message-ID: <3833e1cd-5b74-2459-cb5a-23e4308c07fc@netfence.it> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:41:53 +0100 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.0 Subject: Re: Can security/ca_root_nss be retired? Content-Language: en-US To: Hajimu UMEMOTO Cc: ports@freebsd.org References: <551458a3-665f-9f55-8ef9-1dd23e1e3aee@bluerosetech.com> <56babb59-ab5b-7845-fbcb-f1cadddfd425@grosbein.net> <5f9b073d-ff90-3c4d-805c-7034cd2299c6@netfence.it> From: Andrea Venturoli In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4NyyJj4lqQz3Pg6 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT] X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 1/20/23 12:17, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > You can put your private CAs into /usr/local/etc/ssl/certs. Well, I never thought of this. I always put them in /etc/ssl/certs. > Running "certctl rehash" makes symlinks of the certs in > /usr/local/etc/ssl/certs into /etc/ssl/certs. In the end, however, the result is the same: I have my certs hashed in /etc/ssl/certs, but some software will use them, some other software uses/prefers some different store (I counted at least 5). I understand it's mostly a matter of fixing (?) those softwares, but it would help if: _ there was a clear policy that proper certs are those in /etc/ssl/certs (or whatever else); _ there wasn't a widely required port (ca_root_nss) that installs two additional stores side by side with the "official" (?) one. bye av.