Thanks.
And yes i will keep in mind about openssl-users mailing list.
dhiraj
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Matt Caswell m...@openssl.org wrote:
On 09/06/15 06:08, Dhiraj Bhor wrote:
Hi,
I am writing an application which will configure, make and copy
libssl.so to custom location.
On 09/06/15 06:08, Dhiraj Bhor wrote:
Hi,
I am writing an application which will configure, make and copy
libssl.so to custom location. Since tester does not know which version
of openssl he is testing, i wanted to know that is there any api which
will be used through C code to print
Zooko only asked for supporting Blake2 as an MD5 replacement, but he's being
too modest. I can't stress enough how important the speed of Blake2
The problem is that when you say Blake2 everyone (yes, everyone in the entire
world:) thinks it's one digest. What's really meant is a family of
I agree. How about Blake256 and Blake512, and leave out the parallel
versions? That's not confusing.
My original proposal :)
I don't think supporting some of the Blake family is in any doubt.
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:19:56AM +, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn wrote:
I'd support adding 2b and 2s, in spite of the fact that the names are
really really bad. I'm less interested in seeing the parallel variants
added. FWIW.
Well, the reason I'm here is that the GNU coreutils
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:19:56AM +, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn wrote:
I'd support adding 2b and 2s, in spite of the fact that the names are
really really bad. I'm less interested in seeing the parallel variants
added. FWIW.
Well, the reason I'm here is that the GNU coreutils
Am 09.06.2015 um 18:43 schrieb Bill Cox:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com
mailto:rs...@akamai.com wrote:
Zooko only asked for supporting Blake2 as an MD5 replacement, but he's
being too modest. I can't stress enough how important the speed of Blake2
The
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 04:39:36PM +, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn via RT wrote:
We, the BLAKE2 maintainers, offer both reference C code and optimized
implementations: https://blake2.net/#dl . There are also other
implementations with various virtues available: https://blake2.net/#sw
So it's my
All of these are good options in my opinion:
BLAKE2b — widely used, very efficient on modern 64-bit Intel CPUs and
on ARM chips with NEON, simpler than the p versions
BLAKE2s — more efficient on 32-bit chips (e.g. ARMs) which do *not* have NEON
BLAKE2sp, multithreaded — fastest option on
Hi Bill,
First of all, it's spelled BLAKE, with capitals :-)
BLAKE-256 is the 256-bit version of BLAKE. Calling BLAKE2 BLAKE would be
confusing.
What about B2-256 and B2-512?
ccing other B2 codesigners
On Tue 9 Jun 2015 at 19:20 Bill Cox waywardg...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at
Dear Kurt:
Another option is to include BLAKE2sp but use the single-threaded
reference implementation of BLAKE2sp. (Thanks to Samuel Neves for
reminding me about this.)
That way the hash values produced would be compatible with other
people's implementations, or possible future implementations,
Bill, I agree.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Bill Cox
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 18:00
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3897] request: add BLAKE2 hash
function (let's kill
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn
zo...@leastauthority.com wrote:
All of these are good options in my opinion:
BLAKE2b — widely used, very efficient on modern 64-bit Intel CPUs and
on ARM chips with NEON, simpler than the p versions
BLAKE2s — more efficient on
The only mentions of SSL_CTX_sess_get_new_cb are packages that bundle
or replicate OpenSSL code:
It's not surprising; code that sets the callback should first get and store the
old callback so that they can explicitly chain them. But that's not
well-explained, fragile with dynamic libraries
Hi all,
I am using X509_STORE and X509_LOOKUP to verify the certificate and its
chain.
But at the end when I do X509_STORE_free(store) and X509_LOOKUP_free
(lookup), it is also doing free of the X509* certificate which I added.
But I don't want that, because after that when I immediately try
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:48:41AM +0530, Nayna Jain wrote:
I think I will try with PEM_read_xxx and d2i_, then probably do not have
to read throu first character as 0x30.
That works, provided you rewind or re-open the file.
Are all d2i_xxx type of APIs for DER format.
Yes, they decode
Thanks..
I think I will try with X509_read_xxx and d2i_, then probably do not have
to read throu first character as 0x30.
I had few more questions.
Are all d2i_xxx type of APIs for DER format.
And if I have to operate on DER formatted certs, do I need to first convert
it to PEM and then user
17 matches
Mail list logo
