In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Fri, 11 Oct 2002 15:02:07 +0200, "Frederic DONNAT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
frederic.donnat> As far as i can see some method like
frederic.donnat> "RSA_generate_key()" are not available in
frederic.donnat> "RSA_Method" structure, but RSA key generation can be
fr
Hi Richard,
I have a question PKCS#11 ENGINE, etc ...
As far as i can see some method like "RSA_generate_key()" are not available in
"RSA_Method" structure, but RSA key generation can be provide by hardaware even if key
is not stored on it (for example).
On the other hand, according to PKCS#
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
I believe there's no difference between the hardware interface in
0.9.7 and 0.9.8...
Good... :-D
madwolf> I am starting to take a look at the README for the
[...]
madwolf> command enhanced...
What are you missing in it? It may not be entirely up to dat
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Better go with a snap, there are a few small bugs in beta 3 that makes
it hard to compile.
Ok, I will go with the yesterday's SNAP, although I had no problems in
compiling the beta3 version on my system... lucky me...
If you look at one of the built-in eng
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:36:46 +0200,
Massimiliano Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
madwolf> Ok, I hope that not much code rewriting will be required for
madwolf> the 0.9.8 version (if any).
I believe there's no difference between the hardware interface in
0.9.7 and 0.
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
madwolf> > If you look at one of the built-in engines, you'll see that they're
[...]
madwolf> required, I will build a separate package too...
It's good enough to build it in crypto/engine. But note that for
0.9.8-dev, there's a move to having all the hard
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:29:22 +0200,
Massimiliano Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
madwolf> > If you look at one of the built-in engines, you'll see that they're
madwolf> [...]
madwolf> > you to include support for having it built as a shared library.
madwolf>
madwolf
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:54:16 +0200,
Massimiliano Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
madwolf> I am planning to code it for the openssl-0.9.7-beta3 ( is it
madwolf> better working on latest openssl-0.9.7-stable SNAPs ? ).
Better go with a snap, there are a few small bugs
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
I would suggest, to make it easier, that you go for the MuscleCard API
for now. There will be a generic PKCS#11 engine at some point, and
that should then be possible to use as well.
That is my point of view, either. So I guess I will start studying the
imp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:07:31 +0200,
Massimiliano Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
madwolf> Well, I am not sure about the PKCS#11 because I have not worked on it
madwolf> yet. I guess that if you code an engin that uses a PKCS#11 interface
madwolf> any PKCS#11 library
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
[...]
Do I get it correctly, that this would be a MuscleCard-specific
implementation of a PKCS#11 engine? We already have three other
PKCS#11 engine contribution in our pipe, unfortunately specific to the
hardware the authors were playing with instead of being
Hi,
I have planned to write some code to implement an ENGINE allowing OpenSSL
to use the MUSCLEcard framework so as to use SmartCards just as the other
HW tokens (it could be useful in our project to use the CA keys on a Smart
Card rather then on the HardDrive and having to protect a whole comput
12 matches
Mail list logo
