SSL support in check_http

[Brian E. Seppanen]

Is there a workaround or solution to the problem with SSL support in 
the nagios-plugins 1.3.1

I have a debian 3.0 testing host, openssl is installed and compiled into 
the plugins

checking openssl/ssl.h usability... yes
checking openssl/ssl.h presence... yes
checking for openssl/ssl.h... yes
checking openssl/x509.h usability... yes
checking openssl/x509.h presence... yes
checking for openssl/x509.h... yes
checking openssl/rsa.h usability... yes
checking openssl/rsa.h presence... yes
checking for openssl/rsa.h... yes
checking openssl/pem.h usability... yes
checking openssl/pem.h presence... yes
checking for openssl/pem.h... yes
checking openssl/crypto.h usability... yes
checking openssl/crypto.h presence... yes
checking for openssl/crypto.h... yes
checking openssl/err.h usability... yes
checking openssl/err.h presence... yes
checking for openssl/err.h... yes

When I run check_http

/usr/local/nagios/libexec/check_http -S -a user:pass hostname

I get the following output

3196:error:140820A7:SSL routines:SSL3_CHECK_CERT_AND_ALGORITHM:missing 
export tmp rsa key:s3_clnt.c:1952:
Unable to open TCP socket

I get this for every one one of the secure hosts I'm attempting this 
against.   The only one this test works with is if I test this host 
itself.

All hosts use self signed certificates if that matters.

Thanks,


Brian Seppanen
seppy at chartermi.net
906-475-0107 ext 1040


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null