Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl-users] Failed to access LDAP server when a valid certificate is at .1+

On 01/09/2018 01:47 PM, Misaki Miyashita wrote: > >>> Sorry, I meant to say it is for the 1.0.2 branch. >>> >> Except in exceptional circumstances, code only ends up in the 1.0.2 >> branch after having first gotten into the master branch and then the >> 1.1.0 branch.  The current release policy

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl-users] Failed to access LDAP server when a valid certificate is at .1+

Thank so much for your comment, Ben. We are planing to upgrade to the 1.1.0 branch as soon as we can which is not so easy to do at this moment as we need the FIPS capability. Thus, we are still focusing on the 1.0.2 release, and haven't had a chance to work on the 1.1.0 branch.  Thus, I won't

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl-users] Failed to access LDAP server when a valid certificate is at .1+

Sorry, I meant to say it is for the 1.0.2 branch. Except in exceptional circumstances, code only ends up in the 1.0.2 branch after having first gotten into the master branch and then the 1.1.0 branch.  The current release policy only allows bug fixes to be backported to the stable branches,

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On Monday, 8 January 2018 22:10:07 CET William Bathurst wrote: > Hi Hanno/all, > > I can understand your view that "more is not always good" in crypto. The > reasoning behind the offering can be found in the following whitepaper: > >

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On January 9, 2018 8:41 AM, Rich Salz > ➢ We are currently modifying the source from Apache to OpenSSL open > source > licensing for the Speck/OpenSSL integration. Related repositories such > as the cipher itself will remain under the Apache license. We would love > input on the

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl-users] Failed to access LDAP server when a valid certificate is at .1+

On 01/09/2018 12:53 AM, Misaki Miyashita wrote: > > > On 01/ 8/18 04:46 PM, Misaki Miyashita wrote: >> (switching the alias to openssl-dev@openssl.org) >> >> I would like to suggest the following fix so that a valid certificate >> at .x can be recognized during the cert validation even when >> .0

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

Hi dkg, You stated the following: My understanding is that the algorithm designers and primary advocates have not been particularly forthcoming with their design goals, and their reputation is mixed, at best. Simon and Speck has been in the public domain for a number of years and there are

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

Hi Dmitry, We implemented it using the same means as we saw the other ciphers. It was using the EVP functions. This way it could be included or excluded via makefile. Regards, Bill On 1/9/2018 12:23 AM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote: Dear William, Does SPECK implementation need to be a part of

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

Dear William, Does SPECK implementation need to be a part of the OpenSSL bundle itself? It can be added as engine, similar to Russian GOST support, with minimal patches providing OIDs/NIDs if necessary. On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:52 PM, William Bathurst wrote: > Hello All, >

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

Hi, I'm not particularly convinced. On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:10:07 -0800 William Bathurst wrote: > I will summarize in a different way though. We wish to offer an > optimized lightweight TLS for IoT. A majority of devices found in IoT > are resource constrained, for example

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

I think being able to interoperate with IoT devices using SPECK is a good idea. I'd like to know what kind of key exchange is likely to be used there. Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 9, 2018, at 04:58, Richard Levitte wrote: > > I'm not terribly savvy regarding

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

➢ We are currently modifying the source from Apache to OpenSSL open source licensing for the Speck/OpenSSL integration. Related repositories such as the cipher itself will remain under the Apache license. We would love input on the following items: Don’t bother changing the

Re: [openssl-dev] NonStop platform support

On January 9, 2018 10:10 AM, Richard Levitte wrote: > In message <002801d38956$aec22c30$0c468490$@nexbridge.com> on Tue, > 9 Jan 2018 09:32:25 -0500, "Randall S. Becker" > said: > > rsbecker> A request, maybe OT. The NonStop platform does broadly deploy > rsbecker> Apache

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On January 9, 2018 9:46 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > To: openssl-dev@openssl.org; Randall S. Becker > On 01/09/2018 08:32 AM, Randall S. Becker wrote: > > On January 9, 2018 8:41 AM, Rich Salz > >> ➢ We are currently modifying the source from Apache to OpenSSL open > >>

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

I don’t think anyone is talking about OpenSSL depending on or requiring Apache; that’s a non-starter. It would be interesting to see how many changes you need to support your platform. -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On 01/09/2018 08:32 AM, Randall S. Becker wrote: > On January 9, 2018 8:41 AM, Rich Salz >> ➢ We are currently modifying the source from Apache to OpenSSL open >> source >> licensing for the Speck/OpenSSL integration. Related repositories such >> as the cipher itself will remain under the

[openssl-dev] NonStop platform support

In message <002801d38956$aec22c30$0c468490$@nexbridge.com> on Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:32:25 -0500, "Randall S. Becker" said: rsbecker> A request, maybe OT. The NonStop platform does broadly rsbecker> deploy Apache but do use OpenSSL. I understand that OpenSSL rsbecker> does

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On January 9, 2018 10:05 AM, Rich Salz wrote: > It would be interesting to see how many changes you need to support your > platform. Surprisingly not many at all. The platform has been significantly modernized since early ports. Most of the differences are the addition of a FLOSS layer (though

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On Tue 2018-01-09 18:41:25 -0800, William Bathurst wrote: > [ dkg wrote: ] >> My understanding is that the algorithm designers and primary advocates >> have not been particularly forthcoming with their design goals, and >> their reputation is mixed, at best. > > Simon and Speck has been in the

Re: [openssl-dev] Speck Cipher Integration with OpenSSL

On 9. jan. 2018, at 7:40 f.h., Randall S. Becker wrote: > On January 9, 2018 10:05 AM, Rich Salz wrote: >> It would be interesting to see how many changes you need to support your >> platform. > > Surprisingly not many at all. The platform has been significantly