.Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2
-
@lucas1 said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
Third party Implementation here.
So, because I want to get rid of my existing third-party solution, rather than using the official MS KB patch, I should implement someone elses' third party solution?
-
@Lorne-Kates said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
So, because I want to get rid of my existing third-party solution, rather than using the official MS KB patch, I should implement someone elses' third party solution?
Nothing more helpful than showing up to solve a nine-months-solved problem... with a worse solution.
-
@Lorne-Kates If it works then yes.
-
@heterodox I wasn't marked as solved, and it wasn't obvious that is was solved from reading the thread. So fuck off.
-
@lucas1 said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
t wasn't obvious that is was solved from reading the thread.
@Lorne-Kates said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
Implemented solution:
STunnel running on localhost, pointing to UPS's endpoint, with TLS 1.2. It works. Client is happy. Minimal billable hours (though it's a pretty chunk).
-
@Lorne-Kates While I did spot that, it didn't seem like an "ultimate solution" so I proposed another approach. That is all.
-
@lucas1 said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
@heterodox I wasn't marked as solved
How do you solve a problem like @lucas1?
(Also, it hardly needs to be said, but we're not in the habit of marking threads here as solved, you disingenuous cunt.)
So fuck off.
-
-
@accalia said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
@heterodox said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
How do you solve a problem like @lucas1?
The hills are alive to the sound of cunts
-
@Jaloopa said in .Net 3.5 and TLS 1.2:
The hills are alive to the sound of cunts
A bad time to take the advice of Iron Maiden then.
