enter image description here
I dont't know, i try
This is because your system has internet connection protected with invalid or self-signed certificate.
Easy solution - check your system time, maybe wrong date.
If not, and you are using Windows, check if your system has self-signed certificate. You can try to install valid SSL root certificates (if it has) or use parameter DART_VM_OPTIONS=--root-certs-file=<your_cert>
In Linux certs also can be outdated, fresh certificates usually in system repo, just update your system.
At last, check your internet connection - if you using some type of proxi or firewall (or antivirus with built-in firewall) you can face this error.
Try to connect to internet directly or with different provider.
Related
I just setup MagicDNS and HTTPS on my tailscale account.
Then I ssh'ed into my nas and issued a tls certificate with
sudo tailscale cert "machinename.tailnetalias.ts.net"
Response was:
Wrote private key to machinename.tailnetalias.ts.net.crt
Wrote private key to machinename.tailnetalias.ts.net.key
Now when I try to access the web interface of my nas via https:// in a browser, I get an error. Firefox for example says "SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG".
What can I do about this?
The tailscale cert command doesn't know where the certificate files should be installed (it doesn't even know what you were planning to do with them). So the first question is: did you move those files somewhere to install them? If not, the certificate getting SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG is likely some other cert file which was already there.
If the tailscale cert files did get installed, I think the next step would be to click on the lock icon in Firefox on the left side of the URL. It will have a bunch of information about the TLS connection, in particular:
if the certificate had something wrong with it
in the Technical Details section, it will say what TLS version was used (SSL2, SSL3, TLS1.0, TLS1.1, TLS1.2, TLS1.3).
The SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG error was mostly a problem in older versions of TLS like 1.1 and before. If the TLS version is one of those, it may be necessary to figure out how to get the NAS to stop offering the older versions and only offer 1.2 and 1.3.
I made a tool that exposes a web-interface for the localhost. Now, i require this web-interface to register a https prefix for a page. For this i'm using BouncyCastle to generate a root certificate and a ssl certificate. This all works well (generating, signing and binding to port). IE displays the page by https without certificate warnings etc.
However, when a third party app tries to display the webpage, it fails (unable to load and displaying 'about:blank'). Because it is an embedded webbrowser i am not sure what the exact problem is. Thus, along other stuff, i tried to use fiddler to maybe determine the problem - only to find it DOES accept the certificate fiddler generates.
So what i have done is exporting the fiddler certificates and removed all custom certificates from the stores. Then, i imported the fiddler certificates on the exact same stores where my generated certificates are. I also made sure that the build up (all stuff you can inspect by viewing the certificate properties) are exactly the same. By using Windows MMC, clicking the certificates i can see NO difference, even the order is the same. Critical and such - all match. The only thing that is slightly different: the serial number from my certificates are shorter then the ones generated by fiddler.
So what i end up with are 4 certs (I deleted all the original from fiddler): 1 ssl and 1 root from fiddler and 1 ssl and 1 root from BouncyCastle. The roots are in trusted and the ssl in personal, both on localmachine. Now, when i use netsh to bind the fiddler cert to the port, it works. When i bind my own certificate to the port, it fails.
I have no idear why as all the properties look the same to me.
There is one thing though (again, i have no idea what is going wrong, so this might be irrelevant): on the SSL cert (so not the root one) the SKI points to nowhere (or, at least, i dont see where it points to), but this seems to be the case on the fiddler cert as well. Obviously for both certs the Authority key id point to their respective roots. The SKI on the SSL cert is set by
certificateGenerator.AddExtension(X509Extensions.SubjectKeyIdentifier, false, new SubjectKeyIdentifierStructure(subjectKeyPair.Public));
BTW, i use a VM for testing wich is reset everytime, so i don't think i messed up the cert store somewhere along the way. The tool stays the same, the only thing that changes is the bound certificate, both are registered to 'localhost'
IE thirdparty browser
fiddler's good good
Own's good fail (without message)
Why can 2 seemingly identical certs have a different impact? Is there anything i'm missing in hidden properties or something? And, if so, what should i look for?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Minutes after this post i saw the flaw... It had not to do with the certificate at all, but the way it was bound to the port.... I used code from Mike Bouck to bind the certificate. This line was causing the problem...
configSslParam.DefaultFlags = (uint)NativeMethods.HTTP_SERVICE_CONFIG_SSL_FLAG.HTTP_SERVICE_CONFIG_SSL_FLAG_NEGOTIATE_CLIENT_CERT;
Changing the flags to 0 made it work....
Wasted hours.... :(
I'm receiving the following error when connecting to an AWS Postgres database that requires SSL. I recently upgraded from npgsql 2.3.2 (which was buggy) to 3.0.3 which won't connect. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
DataSource.Error: TlsClientStream.ClientAlertException:
CertificateUnknown: Server certificate was not accepted. Chain status:
A certificate chain could not be built to a trusted root authority. .
at TlsClientStream.TlsClientStream.ParseCertificateMessage(Byte[] buf,
Int32& pos) at
TlsClientStream.TlsClientStream.TraverseHandshakeMessages() at
TlsClientStream.TlsClientStream.GetInitialHandshakeMessages(Boolean
allowApplicationData) at
TlsClientStream.TlsClientStream.PerformInitialHandshake(String
hostName, X509CertificateCollection clientCertificates,
RemoteCertificateValidationCallback
remoteCertificateValidationCallback, Boolean
checkCertificateRevocation) Details:
DataSourceKind=PostgreSQL
I was able to fix the issue by installing the Amazon RDS public certificate on my machine. Once I did this, I was able to connect.
Steps I followed:
Download the AWS RDS public certificate 1
Create a .crt file from the .pem file downloaded. Sample instructions
here 2
Install the certificate (.crt file) on the machine. 3
Connect!
The docs from npgsql give the solution as changing the default trust server certificate of 'false' to 'true' in the connection string.
Unfortunately, neither Excel (AFAIK) nor Power BI will allow you to edit the connection string. So if you are unable to get the SSL certificate from the DB admin (as suggested in another answer), or the SSL cert has a different server name to the name you connect to (in my case an IP address), there is not much that can be done.
I can see two ways of fixing this. Either Shay & co from npgsql (who are doing an excellent job btw) provide some way for users to change the default settings for the connection string parameters. Or Microsoft allows users to send keywords in the connection dialog of Power BI (and Excel).
Npgsql 2.x didn’t perform validation on the server’s certificate by default, so self-signed certificate were accepted. The new default is to perform validation, which is probably why your connection is failing. Specify the Trust Server Certificate connection string parameter to get back previous behavior.
You can read more on the Npgsql security doc page, note also that this change is mentioned in our migration notes.
I had the same issue connecting PowerBI to a locally hosted PostgreSQL server and it turned out to be easy to solve if you can get the right information. Recent Npgsql versions will only connect over SSL if it trusts the certificate of the server. As a Windows application PowerBI uses the windows certificate store to decide what to trust. If you can get the SSL cert for the PostgreSQL server (or the CA cert used to sign that one) then tell Windows to trust that certificate, PowerBI will trust it too.
In the configuration folder for the PostgreSQL server there is a postgresql.conf file, search it for ssl settings, there is one with the location of the ssl cert. Note NOT the key file which contains the private key, only the cert file which contains the public key. copy it or its content to the machine running PowerBI and import using Run | mmc | Add Plugin... Certificates (Google it)
Look at the server name once you imported the cert and connect from PowerBI using the same server name (so the cert matches the connection). That solved the problem for me. If PostgreSQL is configured to insist on a SSL connection you might have to do the same for a ODBC connection too.
Its not best way but worked for me since if u dont need encryption for security reason.
Go to Postgres config file on your DB server and go from
ssl = true
to
ssl = false
Then open your power bi desktop File-> Options and settings -> Data source settings -> then in global you will have saved your connection press Edit Permissions and uncheck "ENCRYPT CONNECTIONS"
Then it will work
WARNING: THIS IS NOT RECOMMENDED IF YOUR DB IS OPEN TO PUBLIC.
Regards,
Davlik
My application requires LWP under SSL, but I can't seem to get it to connect properly without receiving an error.
certificate verify failed)LWP::Protocol::https::Socket: SSL connect attempt failed with unknown error error:14090086:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_SERVER_CERTIFICATE:certificate verify failed at C:/Perl/site/lib/LWP/Protocol/http.pm line 51.
Whenever I load up the website in FireFox on my server, I receive
This connection is untrusted (Technical error: sec_error_unknown_issuer)
Whenever I load it up in Chrome, it verifies absolutely fine.
I can load the page up in FireFox and Chrome on my computer and receive no SSL verification errors at all.
I have no clue what is different between my PC and my server; they're both using the exact same FireFox versions so I'm not sure why it wouldn't verify properly on there.
I've tried workarounds by putting in $ENV{PERL_LWP_SSL_VERIFY_HOSTNAME} = 0 in the Perl script but it seems to throw the same exact error still.
This is the script I'm using to test HTTPS
Does anyone know any solution to this or any workaround?
I've tried workarounds by putting in $ENV{PERL_LWP_SSL_VERIFY_HOSTNAME} = 0
As the name of the option implies it cares only about disabling the check of the hostname against the certificate. It does not disable the validation of the certificate chain.
Whenever I load up the website in FireFox on my server, I receive ...
Since you get validation errors with Firefox and LWP but not with Chrome, Chrome has probably an additional CA as trusted which they others don't have.
From your code it looks like that you are using Windows and from my understanding Firefox comes with its own CA store, LWP uses Mozilla::CA (which contains the CAs usually shipped with Firefox) but Chrome uses the system CA store. Thus there is probably a CA in the system store which Firefox and LWP don't know about.
While it might be that there is some special esoteric CA which is known to the default Windows CA store but not to Firefox, it is more likely that you are behind some SSL inspecting firewall and that the administrators added the necessary proxy certificate to Windows CA store but not to Firefox or LWP's store. I would suggest you check the certificate chain inside the Chrome browser and look at the top (builtin) certificate.
If you consider the CA trusted you might export it and import it into Firefox. You might also make LWP use this CA by saving it in PEM format and then set the PERL_LWP_SSL_CA_PATH environment variable to point to the saved file or use the SSL_ca_path option in the ssl_opts setting to make LWP use this CA certificate for validation.
If this explanation does not lead to a solution please provide more details about the target URL you are trying to access and the network setup you have, especially if there is a SSL intercepting proxy or firewall. Please provide also information about the version of LWP you are using, because there changed a lot with version 6.
I want to support HTTPS in my web application. Since the certificates from Verisign are costly, I decided to use openssl for generating certificate. Here is the link I referred https://community.jboss.org/wiki/JBossAS7ConfiguringSSLOnJBossWeb
When I tried to access the application in browser I got the error "The site's security certificate is not trusted". Here is the screenshot,
Please let me know how I can solve this error? Is it possible to use openssl in production?
The issue is that your self signed certificate is not 'trusted' by the browser. It does not recognise it as signed by one of the certificate authorities it trust.
You have two options - tell the browser it can trust the certificate or tell the browser that it can trust the entity which issued it (meaning that if you use the same certificate to sign other certificates; that those also get trusted).
See http://googlechrometutorial.com/google-chrome-advanced-settings/Google-chrome-ssl-settings.html for more information. Once you are in 'Manage certificates' you can import your own ones.
Every browser, every users, will have to go through those steps. So that is practical logistical limit on how much 'production' you can run with this.
Do check out the various 'free' certificates; they are very low cost.
MAC SOLUTION: The best way that I've found for manually trusting specific site certificates is to use Safari. See, when you manually trust a certificate in Safari, it requires you to enter your OS X account password. Safari does this because it stores the certificate details in Keychain Access, a system application that manages all vital data you store on your computer.
This is significant because Chrome also communicates with Keychain Access. Once the program has a record of the certificate being trusted by Safari, Chrome will also trust the certificate. You may have to restart the Chrome browser after activating the certificate in Safari to get this to work correctly.
Happy browsing!