Since upgrading to ZNC 1.6.0, I've been looking for server fingerprints on networks' websites. It seems that most are provided as SHA-1. It would be logical for ZNC to accept the more common representation of certificate fingerprints, especially if #866 never happens.
Since upgrading to ZNC 1.6.0, I've been looking for server fingerprints on networks' websites. It seems that most are provided as SHA-1. It would be logical for ZNC to accept the more common representation of certificate fingerprints, _especially_ if #866 never happens.
##
<bountysource-plugin>
---
Want to back this issue? **[Post a bounty on it!](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/8636368-tls-certificate-validation-should-work-with-sha-1-fingerprints-too?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** We accept bounties via [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F1759&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).
</bountysource-plugin>
<!-- github-sync-id:57877261 -->
MD5 and SHA-1 are **deprecated**, so accepting them would be a bug.
I personally have this bash/zsh function
[outdated, look at my blog for the current version](https://mikaela.info/english/2015/02/24/znc160-ssl.html#checking-the-fingerprint-from-multiple-locations)
<!-- github-comment-id:74613957 -->
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Since upgrading to ZNC 1.6.0, I've been looking for server fingerprints on networks' websites. It seems that most are provided as SHA-1. It would be logical for ZNC to accept the more common representation of certificate fingerprints, especially if #866 never happens.
Want to back this issue? Post a bounty on it! We accept bounties via Bountysource.
MD5 and SHA-1 are deprecated, so accepting them would be a bug.
I personally have this bash/zsh function
outdated, look at my blog for the current version
I would also close this.