[openssl-users] explicitly including other ciphers.

Ron Croonenberg ronc at lanl.gov
Mon Dec 7 19:53:20 UTC 2015

well...  the performance loss would be high, I know that from other 

Also, each server (there are 50) would need it's own 'proxy' that 
probably is a little impractical.

We're moving a lot of data...  machines that cache run out of memory to 
actually cache in no time. caching would only work with little bits of data.

On 12/03/2015 10:32 PM, Michael Wojcik wrote:
>> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-bounces at openssl.org] On Behalf
>> Of Jakob Bohm
>> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 21:11
>> To: openssl-users at openssl.org
>> Subject: Re: [openssl-users] explicitly including other ciphers.
>> On 04/12/2015 03:03, Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>> So rather than connecting directly to Apache, how about connecting to a
>> TLS proxy like stunnel, which would then connect to Apache over vanilla
>> HTTP. Configure Apache to only bind to loopback addresses (127/8 and/or
>> ::1), so no one can bypass the proxy.
>> Wouldn't that extra hop via stunnel cost performance
>> (noting that Ron is apparently running at faster than
>> gigabit speed).
> Yes, but depending on the actual application behavior, it might be negligible compared to the cost of certificate validation and the like. I don't know enough about the situation to guess whether the impact would be an issue, so I thought I'd propose this as one possible alternative.
> The application might even be such that a caching proxy could be used in front of Apache for a performance gain - for example if the same content is re-read frequently and the HTTP cache control mechanisms allow it to be usefully cached.

More information about the openssl-users mailing list