In message <20180907.025152.1131079938025695690.levi...@openssl.org> on Fri, 07
Sep 2018 02:51:52 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte said:
> For example, *all* two-prime RSA keys from pre-1.1.1 become unreadable
That was a bit of an over-statement... but it seems that there are
things in the wild
PR for 7133 submitted.
Pauli
--
Oracle
Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption
Phone +61 7 3031 7217
Oracle Australia
From: Tim Hudson [mailto:t...@cryptsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2018 8:51 AM
To: openssl-project@openssl.org
Subject: Re:
We currently have 8 1.1.1 PRs that are open. 3 of which are in the
"ready" state. There are 2 which are alternative implementations of the
same thing - so there are really on 4 issues currently being addressed:
#7145 SipHash: add separate setter for the hash size
Owner: Richard
Awaiting review
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> I'm not keen on that. What do others think?
No objections to issuing a release. We're unlikely to have to change the
API/ABI or feature set based on further beta feedback. Any late bugs can
be fixed in 1.1.1a, and unless they trigger
We need to get this release out and available - there are a lot of people
waiting on the "production"release - and who won't go forward on a beta
(simple fact of life there).
I don't see the outstanding items as release blockers - and they will be
wrapped up in time.
Having the release date as a
On 06/09/18 17:32, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues:
>
> Since we did make a lot of changes, including things that
> applications can run into, would it make sense to have an other
> beta release?
I'm
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues:
Since we did make a lot of changes, including things that
applications can run into, would it make sense to have an other
beta release?
Kurt
___
