Ask this kind of thing on openssl-dev or -users; this is not a bug.
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Depends on the CPU, if you have a slow CPU RSA key gen will be slow.
It seems to take ~ 1/10th of a second here with current x86_64 hardware.
Something less capable. (ARM7) ~ 5 seconds.
Your mips hardware is slow but in the ballpark.
Peter
From: BeomGeun Bae via RT
To:
Cc: openssl-
> * Don't implement the parallelized versions (BLAKE2bp and BLAKE2sp).
> * Don't change the names of the algorithms from "BLAKE2b" and "BLAKE2s"
> (they are already widely known under those names).
> * Don't integrate any of the optimized asm implementations, just a single
> portable C implementat
> There's probably a ton of other stuff that I've forgotten and my
> colleagues will remind me about.
There's BLAKE2. It already has mature and widely-used source code,
including multiple independently-written portable C implementations,
and Bill Cox has offered to integrate those into openssl:
h
Fixed now, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/ope
OK, thanks for the update, ticket closed.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/list
Hello,
FYI I rebased the code [0] on master and updated it to use the new test suite
framework. As mentioned in the GitHub PR, I kept the actual implementation and
the tests on two separate commits for easier review, but if you prefer I can
squash them together.
Could someone please review this?
Hello,
see GitHub pull request at
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/399
It provides a short analysis of the problem and a fix.
Cheers
___
openssl-bugs-mod mailing list
openssl-bugs-...@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl
>> Is the -Dunix test in config script?
>
> No, it's in apps/rehash.c
Actually, I meant where should system type "unix" be detected and set so
that it is automatically set in the Makefile...
>
>> For a quick fix I added -Dunix to CFLAGS in Makefile and I am able to
>> make
>> and run tests.
>
> So
Is the "Async support" you have listed the same code that Intel
developed for Cave Creek? Or is the Intel contribution planned for a
follow-on release?
On 09/16/2015 10:54 AM, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
>
> On 16/09/15 15:38, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Mat
> the current state of play is with ChaCha/Poly. There's probably a ton of other
> stuff that I've forgotten and my colleagues will remind me about.
I am committing to do all the new crypto if someone better qualified (and there
are a couple of folks on the team) don't do so.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/09/15 15:38, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> The OpenSSL Project team would like to announce the publication
>> of our current plans for the OpenSSL 1.1.0 release timetable.
>> This
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The OpenSSL Project team would like to announce the publication of our
> current plans for the OpenSSL 1.1.0 release timetable. This has been
> included in our release strategy available here:
>
> https://www.openssl.org/policies/rele
> Hmmm. It used to build and test OK, did the check for -Dunix change
> recently?
No.
> Is the -Dunix test in config script?
No, it's in apps/rehash.c
> For a quick fix I added -Dunix to CFLAGS in Makefile and I am able to make
> and run tests.
Sounds like the netBSD config needs to add that.
Hi ,
While looking at this commit
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/64b25758edca688a30f02c260262150f7ad0bc7d
I notice a code path that can triggera REF_CHECK error message "...,
bad reference count\n" in some particular case.
I see the same pattern in other code places.
I have not check
On 2015-09-15 21:17, Salz, Rich via RT wrote:
> Yes, it has two main functions, based on #ifdef unix.
> Not sure why netBSD doesn't -Dunix.
Hmmm. It used to build and test OK, did the check for -Dunix change
recently?
Is the -Dunix test in config script?
For a quick fix I added -Dunix to CFLAGS
Hi,
i had some problems on Win64 using BIO_do_handshake/BIO_should_retry in a loop.
The compiler optimizer placed a local variable value in the xmm6 register.
The content of this register was destroyed after calling BIO_do_handshake. I
debugged this and found that the xmm6/xmm7 registers were no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The OpenSSL Project team would like to announce the publication of our
current plans for the OpenSSL 1.1.0 release timetable. This has been
included in our release strategy available here:
https://www.openssl.org/policies/releasestrat.html
Yours
Th
I don't know where i need to ask but have a question for RSA_generate_key().
Do you have minimum cpu performance to run RSA_generate_key() for 2048bits?
When I tested it in our system (4,000mips), it task more than 10 seconds.
Is this expected?
___
opens
Got it working with latest SNAP:-)
Thanks,
/Leif
On 2015-09-14 23:04, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
> On Mon Sep 14 01:09:14 2015, leif.thures...@foxt.com wrote:
>> I understand that there has been an overhaul of the TLS-PSK support.
>> Is there any chance to get the SSL_use_psk_identity_hint() fun
Got it working with latest SNAP:-)
Thanks,
/Leif
On 2015-09-14 23:04, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
On Mon Sep 14 01:09:14 2015, leif.thures...@foxt.com wrote:
I understand that there has been an overhaul of the TLS-PSK support.
Is there any chance to get the SSL_use_psk_identity_hint() function
21 matches
Mail list logo
