On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:23 +0100, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jan 27 15:01:56 2006]:
This patch is adding support for TLS hello extensions and externally
generated pre-shared key material to OpenSSL 0.9.8. This is
based on the patch from Alexey Kobozev [EMAIL
DALE REAMER wrote:
I should explain further. The client is using openssl, the server is on
firmwware and cannot use openssl. The server developer has rc4 code and we want
to verify the encryption phase after the handshake phase. If I could give him
separately(offline) the session secret
Brian Long wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:23 +0100, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
Note that some TLS extension code has recently been committed to the
HEAD (0.9.9-dev). So if this is to be included into OpenSSL it would
have to work with that.
Is it true that openssl-0.9.7 and 0.9.8
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006, Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:
Brian Long wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:23 +0100, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
Note that some TLS extension code has recently been committed to the
HEAD (0.9.9-dev). So if this is to be included into OpenSSL it would
have to work with
Hi all,
I 've already seen some mail about this commit.
http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=13190
It sounds to me like a typo, but ...
- Comment is add missing parentheses
- diff is as follow
- if (!data-state != BIO_CONN_S_OK)
+ if (!(data-state != BIO_CONN_S_OK))
00 20 : Illegal DER, leading 00 not needed
00 80 : Legal, leading 00 needed to make number positive
FF 03 : Legal, leading FF needed to make number negative
FF D0 : Illegal DER, FF not needed
Note that these are all legal BER and are all perfectly valid and
meaningful integer
I will not get certificates today for after 2045 because the
certificates that I am checking are certificates that already past a
validation check and have been inserted into my cache system, therefor
it is a certificate signed by our own system which does not sign for
more then 25 year.
1. I don't expect any thing developed specilay for me, I was just
wondering if there is any one out there that knew about a function
that already exists and does it.
2. I am not designing a system to break in 10 years, I am thinking of
better performance for the time until we need to find a
I forget the order of precedence -- does the unary ! have a higher
priority than the comparison operator != ?
i.e., the original code is
if (!(data-state) != BIO_CONN_S_OK)
What on earth is this supposed to do?
data-state == (anything except 0):
!(data-state) == 0.
if (0 != BIO_CONN_S_OK)?
Joe Gluck wrote:
1. I don't expect any thing developed specilay for me, I was just
wondering if there is any one out there that knew about a function
that already exists and does it.
2. I am not designing a system to break in 10 years, I am thinking of
better performance for the time until we
I did not bother to check the performance, just because it is obvious
that it is more time, and even if it is not a lot, why not be better
while I know that performance is a major issue on our system.
Any way, thank you every one, who participated on this thread.
On 1/31/06, Lev Walkin [EMAIL
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Kyle Hamilton wrote:
I forget the order of precedence -- does the unary ! have a higher
priority than the comparison operator != ?
Yes.
http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/c/c-precedence.html
i.e., the original code is
if (!(data-state) != BIO_CONN_S_OK)
What
Joe Gluck wrote:
I did not bother to check the performance, just because
it is obvious that it is more time,
You might be surprized to discover that the obvious thing
is not true.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/optimizationchapter.html
http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/84.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Long
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:58 AM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #1276] [PATCH] TLS Extensions - RFC 3546 (Try
2)
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:23 +0100, Stephen Henson via
14 matches
Mail list logo
