Re: [openssl-users] [THREAD CLOSED]

> On Apr 5, 2016, at 12:52 AM, Jakob Bohm wrote: > > Shut up troll, I was asking Victor what he meant, not > what you were guessing, and since this thread was > supposed to be closed, I wrote you directly. > > And if you are actually Victor, you are hiding it > pretty

Re: [openssl-users] [THREAD CLOSED]

On 05/04/2016 04:21, PGNet Dev wrote: On 04/04/2016 07:08 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 05/04/2016 02:57, PGNet Dev wrote: Sorry to post this here, but you failed to provide any address of said SPAM-L, nor yourself. Try again. http://bfy.tw/565B Troll! I didn't ask what things in the entire

[openssl-users] Openssl-fips object module static library build with /MD option

I have a question on compiling Openssl-fips object module as 64 bit static library in win 8.1. I am using following versions of source and compile instruction. openssl-fips-2.0.12 1. cd openssl-fips-2.0.12 2. SET FIPSDIR=C:\tools\fips\opensslfips 3. ms\do_fips no-asm This turns out the build

Re: [openssl-users] CMS with Symmetric key

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 11:34 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > >> I'm trying to use the CMS operations in libcrypto but with a symmetric key >> encryption key instead of x509. > > We don't support this. It looks like we do. See crypto/cms/cms_pwri.c and the undocumented

Re: [openssl-users] CMS with Symmetric key

> I'm trying to use the CMS operations in libcrypto but with a symmetric key > encryption key instead of x509. We don't support this. -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe:

Re: [openssl-users] [THREAD CLOSED]

On 04/04/2016 07:08 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 05/04/2016 02:57, PGNet Dev wrote: Sorry to post this here, but you failed to provide any address of said SPAM-L, nor yourself. Try again. http://bfy.tw/565B Troll! I didn't ask what things in the entire world were historically named "SPAM-L"

Re: [openssl-users] [THREAD CLOSED]

Sorry to post this here, but you failed to provide any address of said SPAM-L, nor yourself. Try again. http://bfy.tw/565B -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users

Re: [openssl-users] [THREAD CLOSED]

On 05/04/2016 02:44, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: A lot more non-productive ensued from the meta-discussion than the from the original junk email. Please move the junk mail discussion to SPAM-L or, better yet, just it die. This is the openssl-users mailing list. Sorry to post this here, but you

[openssl-users] [THREAD CLOSED] (was: Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670)

A lot more non-productive ensued from the meta-discussion than the from the original junk email. Please move the junk mail discussion to SPAM-L or, better yet, just it die. This is the openssl-users mailing list. -- Viktor. -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe:

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

Is there nowhere else this interminable thread can be taken? Some of us actually subscribe to this list to actually follow *openssl* use & issues. Take it up with the list admins directly? On 04/04/2016 05:39 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: On 05/04/2016 01:47, Johann v. Preußen wrote: '/No one

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

On 05/04/2016 01:47, Johann v. Preußen wrote: '/No one (until about 2 hours ago) were discussing how the // //particular "From" address got past the "you must be // //subscribed to post" filter/' actually, i first posted on this issue c. 76 hours ago. Not in this thread on openssl-users as

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

'/No one (until about 2 hours ago) were discussing how the // //particular "From" address got past the "you must be // //subscribed to post" filter/' actually, i first posted on this issue c. 76 hours ago. '/maybe the spoofed From address happened to be a subscriber/' is it possible that openssl

Re: [openssl-users] CMS with Symmetric key

On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote: > Unless you can point out a clause in the "CMS" format RFCs > that allow use without X.509 certificates, there is no reason > why the "CMS" part of the OpenSSL library should be able to > any such thing. The CMS RFC (RFC

Re: [openssl-users] CMS with Symmetric key

On 05/04/2016 00:18, Abe Racioppo wrote: Hey guys, I'm trying to use the CMS operations in libcrypto but with a symmetric key encryption key instead of x509. I'm thinking I want to use a combination of CMS_RecipientInfo_set0_pkey, SMIME_write_CMS, and CMS_EncryptedData_encrypt. Has anyone

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

On 04/04/2016 22:28, Johann v. Preußen wrote: i am not certain i understand how it is google's fault that this owenevans98|Dawn was able to slip into the listserv database. this is, of course, assuming that this was not done via a simple sign-up. i also do not understand how prohibiting a

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

if this list was for tex-mex cooking recipes or ES vacation rentals, i would agree that expectations for privacy might be very low and individual subscribers are responsible to be as circumspect as they personally feel they must be. however, this is a list of people in the fore-front of

[openssl-users] CMS with Symmetric key

Hey guys, I'm trying to use the CMS operations in libcrypto but with a symmetric key encryption key instead of x509. I'm thinking I want to use a combination of CMS_RecipientInfo_set0_pkey, SMIME_write_CMS, and CMS_EncryptedData_encrypt. Has anyone done this before and can give me some

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

i am not certain i understand how it is google's fault that this owenevans98|Dawn was able to slip into the listserv database. this is, of course, assuming that this was not done via a simple sign-up. i also do not understand how prohibiting a posting (content, infra) that obfuscates a message

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

right now our conversation is bi-directional since the listserv is off-line. i also looked at the headers and they do seem to originate within google itself ( bogon receipts). so, are you telling me that the mere fact that an email is addressed to the list will get it published without

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Johann v. Preußen wrote: > i am not certain i understand how it is google's fault that this > owenevans98|Dawn was able to slip into the listserv database. this is, of > course, assuming that this was not done via a simple sign-up. i also do

Re: [openssl-users] Is SHA hashing algorithm reversable?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:26:29AM -0700, Sugumar wrote: > I going to use SHA256 algorithm for storing my passwords in secure manner. > But after reading some documentations related to SHA i come to know it is > not reversable. > Yes hashing means its not reversable only. > But i saw some online

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

> And anyway, this seems to be a case where the genuine > operator of an e-mail domain is failing to correctly > authenticate submissions by their own users, which no > amount of 3rd party automation (other than blacklisting > the failing provider, in this case gmail) could stop. Yeah, I'm

Re: [openssl-users] Fwd: CONGRATULATION____REF#87670

Key Fact: Not all e-mail is sent by or through 800 pound gorilla providers such as Google. Many organizations and businesses (including the OpenSSL project) run their own e-mail servers and simply don't have the manpower to track and implement every new "anti-spam flagging" fad that comes along.

Re: [openssl-users] Is SHA hashing algorithm reversable?

Hi, > But i saw some online websites giving the original data by reversing the hash data. If they can, this is NOT by reversing the hash data. You will find lots of articles on the web to explain how it can be 'cracked', for example : https://crackstation.net/hashing-security.htm --

Re: [openssl-users] Is SHA hashing algorithm reversable?

> -Original Message- > From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On > Behalf Of Sugumar > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 9:26 AM > To: openssl-users@openssl.org > Subject: [openssl-users] Is SHA hashing algorithm reversable? > > Hi, > > I going to use SHA256

[openssl-users] Is SHA hashing algorithm reversable?

Hi, I going to use SHA256 algorithm for storing my passwords in secure manner. But after reading some documentations related to SHA i come to know it is not reversable. Yes hashing means its not reversable only. But i saw some online websites giving the original data by reversing the hash data.