> +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
+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
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
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
+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
+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:
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
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:
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
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 |
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
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
See pull request
#198 - Add 'OpenSSL Technical Policies' page with a 'Voting Policy' section
https://github.com/openssl/web/pull/198
Matthias
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,
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo