[foaf-protocols] openid4.me and foafssl.org on chromium

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Fri Aug 13 11:59:58 CEST 2010


Henry Story wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2010, at 01:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>   
>> Henry Story wrote:
>>     
>>> Just noticed that with the latest chromium on Apple Mac OSS [1]
>>> - that is todays' and the one I had just before that which I downloaded
>>> a few weeks ago - has the same problem with the following sites:
>>>
>>>   https://openid4.me/
>>>   https://foaf.me/simpleLogin.php
>>>
>>> When I go to one of those it will ask me for a certificate. Whatever certificate
>>> I choose I get the following error
>>>
>>> [[
>>> SSL connection error.
>>>
>>> Unable to make a secure connection to the server. This may be a problem with the server, or it may be requiring a client authentication certificate that you don't have.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> I don't get that error for Firefox or Opera on OSX.
>>>
>>> Is this a bug in Chromium? Is it tracked? If so where can we vote it up?
>>>
>>> 	Henry
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] download chromium here
>>>    http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapshots/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foaf-protocols mailing list
>>> foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
>>> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>> Henry,
>>
>> FWIW -- I used Chrome on Mac OS X against: <https://id.myopenlink.net/ods>, and it worked just fine. Mac OS X Keyring (Cert. Manger) presented me with my Certs, I picked the appropriate one for the <http://id.myopenlink.net/ods> dataspace and I was in :-)
>>     
>
> That is cool Kingsely. But that was not the issue.
>
> I don't have any trouble with Chrome/ium logging into foaf+ssl enabled
> sites. But I do have trouble logging into foaf.me and openid4.me.
>   

Isn't foaf.me a WebID protocol compliant site? While openid4.me a 
WebID+OpenID compliant site?
> So there is something both those sites are doing that most other sites do not do.
> Whetever they do that is different is something most other browsers don't seem to
> care about. What they are doing may somehow be wrong and Chrome/ium may be correct 
> to refuse the connection. But it is also quite likely that there is a bug in 
> Chrome/ium. And we may as well fix that if we can.
>   

Can't quite process the logic. You've somehow deemd these sites as 
standards bearers for WebID (nee. FOAF+SSL) protocol and Browser 
behaviour re. SSL/TLS connections? I am a little lost here, really.

What is the issue at hand here: WebID protocol and SSL/TLS compliant 
user interaction compatibility or something else?


Kingsley
>
>
>
>
>   
>> Links:
>>
>> 1. http://twitpic.com/2e49du/full
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen	      President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 







More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list