On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 10:39:03AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > At the very least, it should be added to the big notes:
> > https://www.openssl.org/news/openssl-1.1.0-notes.html
> > (this was in fact the first place I looked when my data was broken,
> > there was nothing about the enc tool
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> As Tomas said - that ship has sailed. In my mind that change was a
> mistake. It could have been done in a non-breaking way by introducing a
> new header format at that time.
>
As regards a new header format. In the case of some of the structures
On 03/10/17 18:51, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 09:45:43AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 08:23 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>>
1.2. This also opens the path to stronger key derivation (PBKDF2)
2. During decryption, if no header block is present,
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 09:45:43AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 08:23 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> >
> > > 1.2. This also opens the path to stronger key derivation (PBKDF2)
> > > 2. During decryption, if no header block is present, and no message
> > > digest was specified,
On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 08:23 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> > 1.2. This also opens the path to stronger key derivation (PBKDF2)
> > 2. During decryption, if no header block is present, and no message
> > digest was specified, the default digest SHOULD be MD5.
>
> Should it? What about
On 02/10/17 20:20, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Commit f8547f62c212837dbf44fb7e2755e5774a59a57b (documented in
> 9e8b6f042749ded556380227c9f2db7ffad9a3aa), changed the default digest
> for the 'enc' utility from MD5 to SHA256.
>
> While I do strongly encourage getting away from MD5, this has the
>
Commit f8547f62c212837dbf44fb7e2755e5774a59a57b (documented in
9e8b6f042749ded556380227c9f2db7ffad9a3aa), changed the default digest
for the 'enc' utility from MD5 to SHA256.
While I do strongly encourage getting away from MD5, this has the
unfortunate side effect of silently breaking existing
