Hi all,
thanks for all the pointers - it was indeed a problem with the certificates.
cheers,
JJK / Jan Just Keijser
On 19/05/16 18:19, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:58:11PM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
What kind (and size) of keys are in your certificates?
That sounds like
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:31:54PM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> >With 0.9.8 s_client or s_server will be able to use the default
> >CApath that is probably hashed with the 0.9.8-compatible hash
> >algorithm, allowing either or both to construct a more complete
> >chain,
>
> Indeed, I find it very
On 19/05/2016 18:19, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
With 0.9.8 s_client or s_server will be able to use the default
CApath that is probably hashed with the 0.9.8-compatible hash
algorithm, allowing either or both to construct a more complete
chain,
Indeed, I find it very confusing that specifying
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:58:11PM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> What kind (and size) of keys are in your certificates?
>
> That sounds like the most likely issue.
Perhaps that dhparam2049.pem does not actually contain a 2048-bit
prime. I don't recall a floor on RSA key sizes in 1.0.1.
The
What kind (and size) of keys are in your certificates?
That sounds like the most likely issue.
On 19/05/2016 17:26, Jan Just Keijser wrote:
Hi all,
no one has seen this as well? I've seen other mails fly by on
openssl-users after I posted this, yet no response to my query, nor to
a previous
Hi all,
no one has seen this as well? I've seen other mails fly by on
openssl-users after I posted this, yet no response to my query, nor to a
previous mail I sent (about pkcs7). Should I file bug reports instead?
thx,
JJK / Jan Just Keijser
Jan Just Keijser wrote:
hi all,
I've just run
