SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(3SSL) OpenSSL SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(3SSL)NAME
SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode, SSL_get_verify_mode, SSL_CTX_get_verify_depth, SSL_get_verify_depth, SSL_get_verify_callback,
SSL_CTX_get_verify_callback - get currently set verification parameters
SYNOPSIS
#include <openssl/ssl.h>
int SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(const SSL_CTX *ctx);
int SSL_get_verify_mode(const SSL *ssl);
int SSL_CTX_get_verify_depth(const SSL_CTX *ctx);
int SSL_get_verify_depth(const SSL *ssl);
int (*SSL_CTX_get_verify_callback(const SSL_CTX *ctx))(int, X509_STORE_CTX *);
int (*SSL_get_verify_callback(const SSL *ssl))(int, X509_STORE_CTX *);
DESCRIPTION
SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode() returns the verification mode currently set in ctx.
SSL_get_verify_mode() returns the verification mode currently set in ssl.
SSL_CTX_get_verify_depth() returns the verification depth limit currently set in ctx. If no limit has been explicitly set, -1 is returned
and the default value will be used.
SSL_get_verify_depth() returns the verification depth limit currently set in ssl. If no limit has been explicitly set, -1 is returned and
the default value will be used.
SSL_CTX_get_verify_callback() returns a function pointer to the verification callback currently set in ctx. If no callback was explicitly
set, the NULL pointer is returned and the default callback will be used.
SSL_get_verify_callback() returns a function pointer to the verification callback currently set in ssl. If no callback was explicitly set,
the NULL pointer is returned and the default callback will be used.
RETURN VALUES
See DESCRIPTION
SEE ALSO ssl(3), SSL_CTX_set_verify(3)1.0.1e 2013-02-11 SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(3SSL)
Check Out this Related Man Page
SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(3SSL) OpenSSL SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(3SSL)NAME
SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode, SSL_get_verify_mode, SSL_CTX_get_verify_depth, SSL_get_verify_depth, SSL_get_verify_callback,
SSL_CTX_get_verify_callback - get currently set verification parameters
SYNOPSIS
#include <openssl/ssl.h>
int SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(const SSL_CTX *ctx);
int SSL_get_verify_mode(const SSL *ssl);
int SSL_CTX_get_verify_depth(const SSL_CTX *ctx);
int SSL_get_verify_depth(const SSL *ssl);
int (*SSL_CTX_get_verify_callback(const SSL_CTX *ctx))(int, X509_STORE_CTX *);
int (*SSL_get_verify_callback(const SSL *ssl))(int, X509_STORE_CTX *);
DESCRIPTION
SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode() returns the verification mode currently set in ctx.
SSL_get_verify_mode() returns the verification mode currently set in ssl.
SSL_CTX_get_verify_depth() returns the verification depth limit currently set in ctx. If no limit has been explicitly set, -1 is returned
and the default value will be used.
SSL_get_verify_depth() returns the verification depth limit currently set in ssl. If no limit has been explicitly set, -1 is returned and
the default value will be used.
SSL_CTX_get_verify_callback() returns a function pointer to the verification callback currently set in ctx. If no callback was explicitly
set, the NULL pointer is returned and the default callback will be used.
SSL_get_verify_callback() returns a function pointer to the verification callback currently set in ssl. If no callback was explicitly set,
the NULL pointer is returned and the default callback will be used.
RETURN VALUES
See DESCRIPTION
SEE ALSO ssl(3), SSL_CTX_set_verify(3)1.0.1e 2013-02-11 SSL_CTX_get_verify_mode(3SSL)
Why do shell builtins like echo and pwd have binaries in /bin? When I do which pwd, I get the one in /bin. that means that I am not using the builtin version? What determines which one gets used? Is the which command a definitive way to determine what is being run when I enter pwd? (16 Replies)
Introduction
I have seen some misinformation regarding Unix file permissions. I will try to set the record straight. Take a look at this example of some output from ls:
$ ls -ld /usr/bin /usr/bin/cat
drwxrwxr-x 3 root bin 8704 Sep 23 2004 /usr/bin
-r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin ... (6 Replies)
I see lot of ad-hoc shell scripts in our servers which don't have a shebang at the beginning .
Does this mean that it will run on any shell ?
Is it a good practice to create scripts (even ad-hoc ones) without shebang ? (16 Replies)
For a starter I know the braces are NOT in the code...
Consider these code snippets:-
#!/bin/bash --posix
x=0
somefunction()
if
then
echo "I am here."
fi
# somefunction
#!/bin/bash --posix
x=0
somefunction()
if (2 Replies)
Hi everyone,
I know the following questions are noobish questions but I am asking them because I am confused about the basics of history behind UNIX and LINUX.
Ok onto business, my questions are-:
Was/Is UNIX ever an open source operating system ?
If UNIX was... (21 Replies)
For those interested in installing dash shell on OSX Lion to help test POSIX compliancy of shell scripts, it is quite easy. I did it like this:
If you don't have gcc on your system:
0. Download and install the Command Line Tools for Xcode package from Sign In - Apple *
1. Download the dash... (2 Replies)
Hi all,
I am learning POSIX shell programming, and the book I read, uses the let command for integer arithmetic.
I have downloaded and use the shellcheck program on Linux.
This programs says:
In POSIX sh, 'let' is undefined.
See the screenshot attached.
What is the POSIX... (1 Reply)
I don't know how to start this but here goes.
I've been "using" Linux for over 10 years, possibly more and I still feel like I'm nowhere
where I should be. I'll be fair most of my time was spent either figuring out how
to run games on *nix at the time but as I got older and "wiser" I... (8 Replies)
In a professional environment with traditional application you often want (or are asked) to report the users.
Traditionally there is the who command
who | awk '{print $1}'telnetd or sshd register the users in the utmp file, to be shown with who, w, users, finger, pinky, ...
In addition they... (1 Reply)
Hi all, (mainly Neo)...
I keep noticing that the SQRT code I wrote recently for a POSIX shell keeps appearing, (the green colour sticks out like a sore thumb).
So I decided to take a look on Google.
Guess what?
UNIX.COM comes first in Google's listing just from two words, see image... (2 Replies)