On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 16:25 +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:15:01 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > So saying this is "just recompliation and configuration change" is
> > at least somewhat oversimplified.
> >
> > But I am OK with that. I'm just saying it should be better
> > ad
>>DSA
>
> What is the cryptographic weakness of DSA that you are avoiding?
It's a good question. I don't recall the specific reason why that was added
to
the list. Perhaps others can comment.
The only weakness I know about is that if you re-use the nonce, the private
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:15:01 +0200,
Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> So saying this is "just recompliation and configuration change" is
> at least somewhat oversimplified.
>
> But I am OK with that. I'm just saying it should be better advertised
> and that internally openssl should not use the "load legacy p
On 15/07/2019 15:15, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:48 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>
>> On 15/07/2019 14:43, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:19 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
On 15/07/2019 13:58, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
IMO this is a major release and therefore
On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:48 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> On 15/07/2019 14:43, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:19 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > > On 15/07/2019 13:58, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > >
> > > IMO this is a major release and therefore we should be taking the
> > > opportuni
>DSA
What is the cryptographic weakness of DSA that you are avoiding?
On 15/07/2019 14:46, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>>DSA
>
> What is the cryptographic weakness of DSA that you are avoiding?
It's a good question. I don't recall the specific reason why that was added to
the list. Perhaps others can comment.
Matt
On 15/07/2019 14:43, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:19 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>
>> On 15/07/2019 13:58, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> if the Subject was already fully discussed and thought through then
>>> please disregard this but otherwise I'd like this e-mail t
On Mon, 2019-07-15 at 14:19 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> On 15/07/2019 13:58, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > if the Subject was already fully discussed and thought through then
> > please disregard this but otherwise I'd like this e-mail to be a
> > starting point for discussion.
>
On 15/07/2019 13:58, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> if the Subject was already fully discussed and thought through then
> please disregard this but otherwise I'd like this e-mail to be a
> starting point for discussion.
>
> I suppose the current intention is to make the legacy provider a
Hi everyone,
if the Subject was already fully discussed and thought through then
please disregard this but otherwise I'd like this e-mail to be a
starting point for discussion.
I suppose the current intention is to make the legacy provider as opt-
in only by either application explicitly loading
11 matches
Mail list logo
