On 03/04/17 11:24, Mody, Darshan (Darshan) wrote:
> Thanks Matt,
>
> Just another query. Is the issue addressed in the latest openssl 1.1.0?
My answer was for 1.1.0 (as was your original question)? In any case it
is not addressed in any OpenSSL version.
Matt
>
> Regards
> Darshan
>
>
On 31/03/17 18:54, Raja ashok wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> In ssl3_write_bytes, if (len < tot) we are returning failure with
> SSL_R_BAD_LENGTH error. In this place I hope we should set “tot” back to
> “s->s3->wnum”. Otherwise when application calls back SSL_write with
> correct buffer, it causes
Matt,
I was under impression that issue would have been addressed in latest openssl
version 1.1.0.
In case of high traffic and high secure networks, one of the best way to
validate the long-lived connection is to do renegotiation (unless negotiated
protocol is TLS 1.3 still in draft phase).
Hi all,
We noticed that the depth limit check seems to behave differently
between 1.0.2 and 1.1.0.
In particular, with a (1.1.0)
openssl/test$ ../util/shlib_wrap.sh ../apps/openssl s_server -port 8080
-cert certs/ee-cert.pem -certform PEM -key certs/ee-key.pem -keyform PEM
-no-CApath -CAfile
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> There was a fair amount of churn in x509_vfy.c with the inclusion
> of the DANE stuff and whatnot, so it's not immediately clear to me
> when this change actually happened. I think there are good
> arguments for the
> The issue is fairly time sensitive and leads to non-deterministic outcome.
>
> Hence I was expecting the issue to be addressed with openssl version 1.1.0
> due to major overhaul of state machine and internals.
Perhaps a more accurate way to say it is "I was hoping ..." :)
If this is
Thanks Matt,
Just another query. Is the issue addressed in the latest openssl 1.1.0?
Regards
Darshan
-Original Message-
From: openssl-dev [mailto:openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Matt
Caswell
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:53 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: