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 need to find a better
solution.
Have you measured that performance and found the simple string
comparison (coupled with optional parsing) to be the main contention
point in your application?
Have you used profiler to confirm your performance suspicions?
If not, please do. You'll be thoroughly surprized.
BTW why will I run into trouble at 2015 it should be good up to 2037?
Am I missing some thing?
In 2015 there will be certificates which will break in 2037, like
now there are these which break in 2015.
Thanks,
Joe
On 1/31/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. most are 1 year.
Thanks Joe
You may have a special case, but you can't expect the library to be
designed for your special case. You'll run into trouble after 2015 anyway --
any special reason you're designing things to break in 10 years?
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
