Add troubleshooting guidance for SSL verification errors#7556
Conversation
…ion suite - pallets/click#3642 (merged, code+test), psf/requests#7556 (open, docs-only, one 152-line hunk), Kludex/starlette#3360 (open, 3-file code+test) - REST payloads captured verbatim (provenance in each meta.json); diffs computed from the PRs' real git objects via the git transport - e2e proves parser/chunker reproduce GitHub's own accounting exactly: per-file +/- counts, file counts, PR totals, on all three PRs - real-data split-hunk test (requests mega-hunk at budget 400) - 42 offline tests + 2 live-marked; ruff + mypy --strict clean
| Security Implications of Disabling SSL Verification (``verify=False``) | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
|
||
| - Man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks are a form of active eavesdropping | ||
| in which the attacker intercepts or impersonates the server, especially | ||
| on public networks. | ||
|
|
||
| - Data exposure, where all data transmitted over the network can be | ||
| intercepted and read by the attacker. This includes sensitive information | ||
| such as login credentials, personal data and financial information. | ||
|
|
||
| - Regulatory and compliance issues with regulations like SOC 2 and | ||
| GDPR regarding data security and privacy. Disabling SSL verification | ||
| can lead to non-compliance with these regulations, resulting in legal | ||
| consequences and reputational damage. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is unnecessary. You're repeating what's already said above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah that's true, thanks for pointing that out.
| ``verify='/path/to/certfile'`` is better because it allows you to | ||
| validate the server's certificate against a known trusted certificate, | ||
| providing a higher level of security than disabling verification entirely. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, you've just generated way more words than what was already said above adding no value
| validate the server's certificate against a known trusted certificate, | ||
| providing a higher level of security than disabling verification entirely. | ||
|
|
||
| Troubleshooting SSL Verification Errors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the only section actually requested.
| - Outdated or missing CA certificates on the client machine. | ||
| Requests trust the CAs shipped by the ``certifi`` package, which | ||
| may be old or may not include the CA that signed the server's certificate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Outdated" is unlikely. CAs are not added that frequently to the bundle. When CAs expire, they can stay in the bundle. It's not likely that. It's most likely someone using an expired certificate, a self-signed certificate, or a CA that's not a public CA (e.g., internal PKI implementations).
You've added lots and lots of text here that's not addressing the most common problems.
|
|
||
| - Old Python version or OpenSSL library that does not support modern TLS protocols. | ||
|
|
||
| - An expired certificate on the server. The server's certificate may have expired, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's no example of what this would look like as an error and it's easily the most common one.
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Diagnosing the problem can be done by following these steps: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why so many new lines?
Oh this is "AI" drivel. Might as well stop reviewing now. You put zero real effort into reviewing this at all eh?
2 participants
Closes #7547
Adds a "Troubleshooting SSL Errors" subsection to the SSL Cert
Verification section in docs/user/advanced.rst, covering:
Docs-only change. Line width kept under 79 chars and Python examples
use single quotes per the contributor guide.