In message <20180407190250.ga27...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 21:02:51
+0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
kurt> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 06:49:50PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
kurt> > H... case 4 shouldn't pose too much problems unless you restart
kurt> > the application more
In message <20180407185034.ga25...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:50:35
+0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
kurt> > In going from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1, breaking platforms that used to
kurt> > work is just plain wrong.
kurt>
kurt> So then I suggest we support the syscalls on all platforms that
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 05:55:14PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > Because
> > - It is not clear we need to do so
>
> >That we need to do what?
>
> Do FIPS compliant random numbers in this release.
We will never have that in any release by default, like I already
stated a
In message <20180407174527.gc20...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 19:45:28
+0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
kurt> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 07:00:21PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
kurt> > In message <20180407160031.gb12...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018
18:00:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 07:00:21PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <20180407160031.gb12...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 18:00:32
> +0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
>
> kurt> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 04:58:06PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> kurt> > > Can I suggest you try
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 06:49:50PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <20180407154649.ga12...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 17:46:50
> +0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
>
> kurt> | For case 2 above, the timestamp must be trusted. A trusted
> kurt> | timestamp is generated and
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 04:48:51PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >Like I said in the post I just made, I see zero problems with having
> that requirement on systems that can support it. I don't see why we
> must lower the bar for *everyone* just because we currently need to do
> so
>NIST SP800-90A rev1 section 8.6.7 has:
Compliance with this was never a stated goal of this release. So not relevant.
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project@openssl.org
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
In message <20180407160031.gb12...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 18:00:32
+0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
kurt> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 04:58:06PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
kurt> > > Can I suggest you try something like
kurt> > >
In message <20180407154649.ga12...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 17:46:50
+0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
kurt> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 02:15:51PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
kurt> > I would like to see this put on hold until we fix the ‘now requires 50%
more random seeding’ issue.
kurt>
>Like I said in the post I just made, I see zero problems with having
that requirement on systems that can support it. I don't see why we
must lower the bar for *everyone* just because we currently need to do
so for VMS
Because
- It is not clear we need to do so
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 04:58:06PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> > Can I suggest you try something like
> > https://github.com/usnistgov/SP800-90B_EntropyAssessment to at least
> > get an idea? You would need to sample 1 variable and feed that into
> > it.
>
> And yeah, sure, especially if all
Like I said in the post I just made, I see zero problems with having
that requirement on systems that can support it. I don't see why we
must lower the bar for *everyone* just because we currently need to do
so for VMS
Cheers,
Richard
In message
I would like to see this put on hold until we fix the ‘now requires 50% more
random seeding’ issue.
What should I do to force that issue?
From: Richard Levitte
Reply-To: openssl/openssl
In message <20180406170540.gk80...@mit.edu> on Fri, 6 Apr 2018 12:05:43 -0500,
Benjamin Kaduk said:
kaduk> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:23:02PM +0200, Andy Polyakov wrote:
kaduk> > > This is one reason why keeping around old assembly code can have a
cost. :(
kaduk> > >
kaduk> > >
15 matches
Mail list logo