I think this is a duplicate.
We're still not implementing Camellia-GCM :)
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
On Tuesday 25 August 2015 08:58:57 Hanno Böck wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:32:24 +0200
Hubert Kario hka...@redhat.com wrote:
After all the whole
heartbleed story can largely be explained by that. I'd propose that
OpenSSL doesn't add any new features without a clear explanation
On Tuesday 25 August 2015 08:58:57 Hanno Böck wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:32:24 +0200
Hubert Kario hka...@redhat.com wrote:
After all the whole
heartbleed story can largely be explained by that. I'd propose that
OpenSSL doesn't add any new features without a clear explanation
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:32:24 +0200
Hubert Kario hka...@redhat.com wrote:
After all the whole
heartbleed story can largely be explained by that. I'd propose that
OpenSSL doesn't add any new features without a clear explanation
what advantage they bring in which situation - and who is
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:32:24 +0200
Hubert Kario hka...@redhat.com wrote:
After all the whole
heartbleed story can largely be explained by that. I'd propose that
OpenSSL doesn't add any new features without a clear explanation
what advantage they bring in which situation - and who is
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:21:42 +
Alessandro Ghedini via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS
cipher suites. Most of the code comes from the AES GCM
implementation, so maybe there's an opportunity for some refactoring
there.
May I ask
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:41:19PM +, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
Does camellia offer any significant advantage in
any situation that would justify increasing support?
Yes, I'd like to know who needs it.
GOST is going to move to an externally-maintained ENGINE (thanks, Dimitry:).
We
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:21:42 +
Alessandro Ghedini via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS
cipher suites. Most of the code comes from the AES GCM
implementation, so maybe there's an opportunity for some refactoring
there.
May I ask
May I ask one question: Why?
Excellent question. Because there is an RFC is not a good enough reason any
more, I think.
Does camellia offer any significant advantage in
any situation that would justify increasing support?
Yes, I'd like to know who needs it.
GOST is going to move to an
On Monday 24 August 2015 19:25:24 Hanno Böck wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:21:42 +
Alessandro Ghedini via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS
cipher suites. Most of the code comes from the AES GCM
implementation, so maybe
On Monday 24 August 2015 19:25:24 Hanno Böck wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:21:42 +
Alessandro Ghedini via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS
cipher suites. Most of the code comes from the AES GCM
implementation, so maybe
Hello,
see GitHub pull request at
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/374
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS cipher
suites. Most of the code comes from the AES GCM implementation, so maybe
there's an opportunity for some refactoring there.
This fixes issue
On Sat Aug 22 10:21:42 2015, alessan...@ghedini.me wrote:
Hello,
see GitHub pull request at
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/374
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS cipher
suites. Most of the code comes from the AES GCM implementation, so maybe
there's
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 01:17:36PM +, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
On Sat Aug 22 10:21:42 2015, alessan...@ghedini.me wrote:
Hello,
see GitHub pull request at
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/374
Which adds support for Camellia GCM and adds the correspondent TLS cipher
14 matches
Mail list logo
