[openssl.org #189] Kerberos Ciphersuite IDs

There, I finally got the time to put this in. Just commited. Please test the next 0.9.7 snapshot and make sure I got it all right. This ticket is now resolved. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Sep 30 18:55:14 2002]: Any chance of making progress on this? As a reminder, the issue is that the

Re: [openssl.org #256] c_rehash - file name escape problem

Richard Levitte via RT wrote: Please test the latest snapshot and check if the solution implemented there works for you. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Aug 27 14:12:50 2002]: Sorry for my late answer. I have tested snapshot ftp://ftp.openssl.org/snapshot/openssl-SNAP-20021009.tar.gz I

Re: email vs. emailAddress (was Re: wrong defines SN_xyz)

I think that it is not a good idea to go back to the old definition. You're right; I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday :-) -- Harald Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] It takes a child to raze a village. -Michael T. Fry

DES_CBC_CKSUM in SSL and Kerberos.

Title: DES_CBC_CKSUM in SSL and Kerberos. Hi, I have a customer with a Kerberos V4 application who is trying to decide if they can substitute their existing Kerberos V4 DES encryption capability with SSL's DES encryption support. When calling DES_CBC_CKSUM() from the Kerberos library, the

Re: DES_CBC_CKSUM in SSL and Kerberos.

The answer is: MIT DES and OpenSSL DES use different internal representations of the data. You cannot replace the MIT DES with OpenSSL DES unless you also recompile MIT Kerberos 4 to use the OpenSSL DES as well. Several people have done it in the past but it is not recommended.

[openssl.org #302] bug report - OpenSSL 0.9.6g installed on OS/390 R2.10

We ran the 'make report' and it looks like there are some bugs. I did review Ticket #243 titled 'OpenSSL 0.9.6g fail on IBM OS/390' in the rt database. 1. Compiler: FSUM3012 Specify at least one source, archive, or object operand to be processed. This is not an issue as per the

RE: DES_CBC_CKSUM in SSL and Kerberos.

Thanks very much for your reply, Jeffery. Our initial note may have led you to believe that a wholesale replacement of Kerberos encryption with SSL encryption was being considered beyond the customer's application. That was my wording error. The customer simply wants to use SSL for their

Re: [openssl.org #186] Ticket Resolved

Hi I just went to the RT URL you sent me, and I'm not clear on what actually happened with my request. At some point someone posted a question which was never CC'd to me. Also I'm not sure what is the meaning of these two entries: Tue Aug 13 17:52:03 2002 jaenicke - Milestone 0.9.6h

[openssl.org #186] [PATCH] Makefile.org GNU ld detection

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Oct 10 23:29:14 2002]: a question which was never CC'd to me. Also I'm not sure what is the meaning of these two entries: Tue Aug 13 17:52:03 2002 jaenicke - Milestone 0.9.6h added Tue Aug 13 17:52:13 2002 jaenicke - Subsystem Build added Oh,

Re: [openssl.org #186] [PATCH] Makefile.org GNU ld detection

So, did the patch get put in, or was it useless? -chris Richard Levitte via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Oct 10 23:29:14 2002]: a question which was never CC'd to me. Also I'm not sure what is the meaning of these two entries: Tue Aug 13 17:52:03 2002

[openssl.org #186] [PATCH] Makefile.org GNU ld detection

The question was, in what way does your patch make things better? Since there was no answer for quite a while, I assumed the question wouldn't be answered, and decided to resolve the ticket. Wrongly, it now seems, so I'll reopen it and let you answer the question. [levitte - Thu Oct 10