Hi Matt,
We are using MEM type BIO. similar to the openssl library
‘BIO_TYPE_MEM ‘ we have an internal type defined like ex:- ‘BIO_TYPE_XYZ_MEM’
and all other mem utilities are internally defined.
Like XYZ_mem_new/XYZ_mem_read … etc these utilities are accessing the bio_st
variable ‘num’.
please suggest set/get utilities to handle this scenario.
Regards,
Sunil
From: openssl-users <openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org> On Behalf Of
openssl-users-requ...@openssl.org
Sent: 20 November 2020 23:34
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: openssl-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 19
________________________________
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
________________________________
Send openssl-users mailing list submissions to
openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users<https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
openssl-users-requ...@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users-requ...@openssl.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at
openssl-users-ow...@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users-ow...@openssl.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of openssl-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. set/get utilities are not available to access variable
'num' of structure bio_st (Narayana, Sunil Kumar)
2. Re: set/get utilities are not available to access variable
'num' of structure bio_st (Matt Caswell)
3. EC curve preferences (Skip Carter)
4. RE: EC curve preferences (Michael Wojcik)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:46:00 +0000
From: "Narayana, Sunil Kumar" <sanaray...@rbbn.com<mailto:sanaray...@rbbn.com>>
To: "openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>"
<openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>>
Subject: set/get utilities are not available to access variable
'num' of structure bio_st
Message-ID:
<sn6pr03mb4061a9ff473de74b064a1d8db0...@sn6pr03mb4061.namprd03.prod.outlook.com<mailto:sn6pr03mb4061a9ff473de74b064a1d8db0...@sn6pr03mb4061.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi ,
We are porting our Application from openssl 1.0.1 to openssl 3.0. In related to
this activity we require to access the variable 'num' of structure bio_st.
In older versions the variable was accessed to set and get value using pointer
operator (bi->num ).
Since this is not allowed in 3.0 we are looking for the Get/Set utilities
similar to other member (BIO_set_flags/ BIO_get_flags)
Is this not supported in 3.0 ? If yes, Please guide the proper alternatives.
Regards,
Sunil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. that
is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient.
Any review, disclosure, reliance or
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies,
including any attachments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20201120/f84c547a/attachment-0001.html<https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20201120/f84c547a/attachment-0001.html>>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:55:34 +0000
From: Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org<mailto:m...@openssl.org>>
To: openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>
Subject: Re: set/get utilities are not available to access variable
'num' of structure bio_st
Message-ID:
<53108b39-21f8-dea0-c3c3-fe5517a56...@openssl.org<mailto:53108b39-21f8-dea0-c3c3-fe5517a56...@openssl.org>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 20/11/2020 13:46, Narayana, Sunil Kumar wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> ??????????????? We are porting our Application from ?openssl 1.0.1 to
> openssl 3.0. In related to this activity we require to access the
> variable ?*num*? of structure *bio_st. *
>
> In older versions the variable was accessed to set and get value using
> pointer operator (bi->num ).
>
> Since this is not allowed in 3.0 we are looking for the Get/Set
> utilities similar to other member*(BIO_set_flags/ BIO_get_flags) *
>
> ?
>
> Is this not supported in 3.0 ? If yes, Please guide the proper alternatives.
What kind of BIO are you using? Different BIOs may provide different
mechanisms to get hold of this value. For example a number of file
descriptor based BIOs provide BIO_get_fd().
Matt
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:43:59 -0800
From: Skip Carter <s...@taygeta.com<mailto:s...@taygeta.com>>
To: OpenSSL Users <openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>>
Subject: EC curve preferences
Message-ID:
<1605890639.1675.24.ca...@taygeta.com<mailto:1605890639.1675.24.ca...@taygeta.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I am sure this in the documentation somewhere; but where ?
What are the preferred ECDH curves for a given keysize ? Which curves
are considered obsolete/deprecated/untrustworthy ?
--
Dr Everett (Skip) Carter??0xF29BF36844FB7922
s...@taygeta.com<mailto:s...@taygeta.com>
Taygeta Scientific Inc
607 Charles Ave
Seaside CA 93955
831-641-0645 x103
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20201120/b8a90ad9/attachment-0001.sig<https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20201120/b8a90ad9/attachment-0001.sig>>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:03:22 +0000
From: Michael Wojcik
<michael.woj...@microfocus.com<mailto:michael.woj...@microfocus.com>>
To: Skip Carter <s...@taygeta.com<mailto:s...@taygeta.com>>, OpenSSL Users
<openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>>
Subject: RE: EC curve preferences
Message-ID:
<dm6pr18mb2700d392831ea5cd3ef318d5f9...@dm6pr18mb2700.namprd18.prod.outlook.com<mailto:dm6pr18mb2700d392831ea5cd3ef318d5f9...@dm6pr18mb2700.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> From: openssl-users
> <openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org>>
> On Behalf Of Skip
> Carter
> Sent: Friday, 20 November, 2020 09:44
>
> What are the preferred ECDH curves for a given keysize ? Which curves
> are considered obsolete/deprecated/untrustworthy ?
For TLSv1.3, this is easy. RFC 8446 B.3.1.4 only allows the following:
secp256r1(0x0017), secp384r1(0x0018), secp521r1(0x0019), x25519(0x001D),
x448(0x001E). Those are your choices. If you want interoperability, enable them
all; if you want maximum security, only use X25519 and X448. See
safecurves.cr.yp.to for the arguments in favor of the latter position.
Frankly, unless you're dealing with something of very high value or that needs
to resist breaking for a long time, I don't see any real-world risk in using
the SEC 2 curves. You might want to disallow just secp256r1 if you're concerned
about that key size becoming tractable under new attacks or quantum computing
within your threat timeframe. Ultimately, this is a question for your threat
model.
For TLSv1.2, well...
- Some people recommend avoiding non-prime curves (i.e. over binary fields,
such as the sect* ones) for intellectual-property reasons. I'm not going to try
to get into that, because IANAL and even if I were, I wouldn't touch that
without a hefty retainer.
- Current consensus, more or less, seems to be to use named curves and not
custom ones. The arguments for that seem pretty persuasive to me. So don't use
custom curves.
- Beyond that? Well, here's one Stack Exchange response from Thomas Pornin (who
knows a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do) where he suggests using
just prime256v1 (which is the same as secp256r1 I believe?) and secp384r1:
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/78621/which-elliptic-curve-should-i-use<https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/78621/which-elliptic-curve-should-i-use>
Those are the curves in Suite B, before the NSA decided to emit vague warnings
about ECC. They subsequently decided P384 aka secp384r1 is OK until
post-quantum primitives are standardized. So if your application prefers
secp384r1 for TLSv1.2, then you can decide whether to also allow prime256v1 for
interoperability. Again, that's a question for your threat model.
All that said, some people will have different, and quite possibly
better-informed, opinions on this.
--
Michael Wojcik
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
openssl-users mailing list
openssl-users@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-users@openssl.org>
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users<https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users>
------------------------------
End of openssl-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 19
*********************************************
