RE: VOTE: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday

2020-09-30 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> +1, but wondering why this needs a vote. Because we decided to follow our own bylaws more closely. In particular the following two items: > All OTC decisions are taken on the basis of a vote https://www.openssl.org/policies/omc-bylaws.html#OTC > ### OTC Transparency > The majority of the acti

Re: VOTE: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday

2020-09-30 Thread Richard Levitte
+1 On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:57:34 +0200, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > The following vote has been proposed and voted on at the vF2F today: > > topic: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday > > It has been closed immediately by Tim, the verdict is > > accepted: yes (for: 7, a

Re: VOTE: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday

2020-09-30 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:57:34PM +, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > topic: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday +1, but wondering why this needs a vote. Kurt

Re: Integration of new algorithms

2020-09-30 Thread Kris Kwiatkowski
Hello, In regards to OBJ_new_nid - yes, that's more or less what I already do. I actually use OBJ_sn2nid() which, indeed calls a OBJ_new_nid(). But the problem that I've is different. In keygen (callback set by EVP_PKEY_meth_set_keygen), there is no way to access NID. It seems to be stored in the

Re: VOTE: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday

2020-09-30 Thread Tomas Mraz
+1 On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 13:57 +, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > The following vote has been proposed and voted on at the vF2F today: > > topic: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday > > It has been closed immediately by Tim, the verdict is > > accepted: yes (for: 7, again

Re: VOTE: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday

2020-09-30 Thread Mark J Cox
+1 On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:57 PM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > The following vote has been proposed and voted on at the vF2F today: > > topic: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday > > It has been closed immediately by Tim, the verdict is > > accepted: yes (for: 7, against:

VOTE: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday

2020-09-30 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
The following vote has been proposed and voted on at the vF2F today: topic: OTC meeting will be called for next Tuesday It has been closed immediately by Tim, the verdict is accepted: yes (for: 7, against: 0, abstained: 0, not voted: 4) (Note: the OTC meeting will be held in place of

Re: Is OpenSSL 1.1.1g backward compatible with 1.0.2.f ?

2020-09-30 Thread Tomas Mraz
Hello, unfortunately no, 1.1.1g is neither API nor ABI compatible with 1.0.2f. You cannot directly replace 1.0.2f with 1.1.1g. The applications have to support 1.1.1 release and be recompiled against it to work with it. Regards, Tomas Mraz On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 14:08 +, Kapil Awate wrote:

Re: VOTE: Accept the OTC voting policy as defined:

2020-09-30 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:02:07PM +, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > topic: Accept the OTC voting policy as defined: > >The proposer of a vote is ultimately responsible for updating the > votes.txt >file in the repository. Outside of a face to face meeting, voters > MUST r

Re: Memory leak in openssl 1.1.1d

2020-09-30 Thread Dr Paul Dale
This isn’t enough information to diagnose the issue. Which of the leak summary records is the problem? Are you sure that your application is cleaning up properly (hint: it isn’t, e.g. OpenSSL never calls operator new() from the second record). Pauli -- Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect |

Re: Integration of new algorithms

2020-09-30 Thread Dr Paul Dale
Instead of using an engine, you should write a provider (assuming you’re using the soon to be released OpenSSL 3.0). It doesn’t need a NID. If you are using OpenSSL 1.1.1, try the OBJ_new_nid() function. Pauli -- Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations Phone +61 7

RE: VOTE: Accept the OTC voting policy as defined:

2020-09-30 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
The vote has been closed, the verdict is accepted: yes (for: 9, against: 0, abstained: 0, not voted: 2) topic: Accept the OTC voting policy as defined: The proposer of a vote is ultimately responsible for updating the votes.txt file in the repository. Outside of a face to face

RE: VOTE: Accept the OTC voting policy as defined:

2020-09-30 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
See pull request #198 - Add 'OpenSSL Technical Policies' page with a 'Voting Policy' section https://github.com/openssl/web/pull/198 Matthias

Integration of new algorithms

2020-09-30 Thread Kris Kwiatkowski
Hey, I'm working on development of OpenSSL ENGINE that integrates post-quantum algorithms (new NIDs). During integration I need to modify OpenSSL code to add custom function, but would prefer not to need add anything to OpenSSL code (so engine can be dynmicaly loaded by any modern OpenSSL). So,

Is OpenSSL 1.1.1g backward compatible with 1.0.2.f ?

2020-09-30 Thread Kapil Awate
Hi, Is OpenSSL 1.1.1g backward compatible with 1.0.2.f ? Can anyone help me with this ? Is there any impact on existing functionality after upgrading it to 1.1.1g ? Thanks! This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of

Is OpenSSL 1.1.1g backward compatible with 1.0.2.f ?

2020-09-30 Thread Kapil Awate
Hi, Is OpenSSL 1.1.1g backward compatible with 1.0.2.f ? Can anyone help me with this ? Is there any impact on existing functionality after upgrading it to 1.1.1g ? Thanks! This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and/or privileged material for the sole use of

Memory leak in openssl 1.1.1d

2020-09-30 Thread Abhi Arora
I am using openssl 1.1.1d. I found out around 228 bytes are being directly lost (as per valgrind) report. I have one application which uses curl (7.64) and I wrote the same application using POCO HTTPS and I got the same result. I thought it could be related to the cipher suit. I can see the leak