Hello
On 17/06/16 12:04, Test ssl wrote:
> We are facing an issue with DTLS failure during the Openssl upgrade from
> 1.0.1m to 1.0.1q. We have attached the network trace file in attachment
> with good (1.0.1m) and fail (1.0.1q) case.
>
> The test scenario is that we are trying to connect a
> Does any of this sound like a particularly awful idea?
On the contrary, it sounds like a good idea.
--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Hey there all,
I'm using SSL as part of puppet, which has its own sort of CA.
Puppet has no idea about OCSP, but on the master, it
leaves most of its configuration to the apache backend. Since apache
won't re-read a CRL unless restarted, OCSP seemed like a good answer to
this.
Puppet's CA
Hi,
i've got a question for my study stuff: I have to decrypt a file using C. I
have a corrupt key corrupt-src-key.bin (an initial vector is at the end of
the file - dont know if i should usw them - maybe dont have to). decrypted
file is *.pdf and it was encrypted with Camellia-192-OFB (openssl
Hi Matt,
With same application code and openssl1.0.1m we are not facing "Alert
(Handshake Failure)" but in case of 1.0.1q we are facing it.
That is what we are not able to understand that what is the reason for this
"Alert (Handshake Failure)".
Please help us on this, which part of
On 17/06/16 17:29, Test ssl wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> With same application code and openssl1.0.1m we are not facing "Alert
> (Handshake Failure)" but in case of 1.0.1q we are facing it.
>
> That is what we are not able to understand that what is the reason for
> this "Alert (Handshake Failure)".
Hi Openssl Team,
We are facing an issue with DTLS failure during the Openssl upgrade from
1.0.1m to 1.0.1q. We have attached the network trace file in attachment
with good (1.0.1m) and fail (1.0.1q) case.
The test scenario is that we are trying to connect a cisco based Endpoint
device to a
