I compiled nss+nspr+modutil+certutil 32 bits vs2009 last week. Didnt
compile 64 bits cause Firefox 64 bits is no longer supported (IIRC).
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, farhad@gmail.com wrote:
I searched the net for 64bit build but didn't find anything, I don't have
enough time to build
+1!
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Kyle Hamilton aerow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm finding myself in a situation where I need to use the certificates and
keys stored in my standard NSS profile in other applications.
My initial, naïve idea was that NSS itself is a PKCS#11 module.
In the past we used JSS but at the end we have move to SunPKCS11 provider.
Consider using it as stated in
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/security/p11guide.html#NSS
My two cents.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:12 PM, raj raje...@gmail.com wrote:
Need help in doing the NSS+JSS
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Robert Relyea rrel...@redhat.com wrote:
So looking at this list, I think we have a major inconsistency.
We put Ephemeral over non-ephemeral, but we put 128 over 256.
While I'm OK with Ephemeral (PFS) over non-ephermal (non-pfs), I think
in doing so we are
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Brian Smith br...@briansmith.org wrote:
Something to note is that MSIE has always put AES-128 cipher suites ahead
of AES-128 cipher suites. They also put RSA cipher suites ahead of PFS
cipher suites, though.
I meant: MSIE has always put AES-128 cipher suites
On 08/26/2013 02:24 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Robert Relyea rrel...@redhat.com wrote:
So looking at this list, I think we have a major inconsistency.
We put Ephemeral over non-ephemeral, but we put 128 over 256.
While I'm OK with Ephemeral (PFS) over
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 05:16:43PM -0700, Robert Relyea wrote:
2) It does have a significant downside speed wise. I was responsible
for measuring this once from the server perspective (we were trying to
convince people to use ECC. I could only get wins over RSA at the 2048
bit range with ECDH
7 matches
Mail list logo