Afchine
When are you going to submit a 0.9.7 pkcs#11 engine??
As I understand things, 0.9.6 will not have any new
submissions included 0.9.7 is probably frozen, but the
0.9.8 function will be built on the 0.9.7 base and
a PKCS#11 engine for 0.9.7 would be more likely to be
incorporated into
I've made some improvements in the Bull trustway pkcs#11 engine to be more generic.
In this release, PKCS#11 functions are called through the functions list rather than
specific calls directly to PKCS#11 functions. So it is possible to point it to any
PKCS#11 shared library renamed libpkcs11.so
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:42:51 +0200, Matthias
Loepfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Matthias.Loepfe I just want to give you some background information
Matthias.Loepfe why AdNovum has choosen the let's call it the
Matthias.Loepfe 'interceptor-way' of implementing the
Geoff Thorpe schrieb:
(b) any/all access information (eg. control commands, authorisation
data, the ENGINE id if necessary, etc) that you *want* to include
in the key file should not go into the raw PEM format itself but
instead should be embedded in the per-'nid' data
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002, Matthias Loepfe wrote:
Hi
I just want to give you some background information why AdNovum has
choosen the let's call it the 'interceptor-way' of implementing
the PKCS#11 functionality.
We are working in an environment where the main purpose of the
hardware
Matthias Loepfe wrote:
Hi
I just want to give you some background information why AdNovum has
choosen the let's call it the 'interceptor-way' of implementing
the PKCS#11 functionality.
We are working in an environment where the main purpose of the
hardware security modules (HSM) is not
[NOTE: the following are my thoughts and my thoughts only. Other
members of the OpenSSL development team may have the same opinions, or
different ones]
OK, I've started to take a look at the PKCS#11 patches the have been
contributed. As far as I've been able to see, there are three
