Safe renegotiation patch

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

Steve Dispensa wrote:

>> Why this one is needed? Shouldn't all initial negotiations be accepted
>> and fail only if renegotiation
>> is requested? I believe this was the behavior of your previous patch.
> 
> A totally strict server may not want to allow unpatched clients, since
> those clients are unable to tell if they're being attacked. I defaulted
> it to off to be conservative from a security perspective.

I understand. However this will make the new release non-interoperable
with anything else existing. Thus for now I believe this should be
allowed and at a later point that secure renegotiation is common
practice that should be by default off.

regards,
Nikos