Re: Regarding #def for 'SSL_R_PEER_ERROR_NO_CIPHER' and 'SSL_R_NO_CERTIFICATE_RETURNED' in openssl3.0

2020-12-07 Thread Matt Caswell
On 07/12/2020 14:26, Jakob Bohm via openssl-users wrote: >>> error: 'SSL_R_PEER_ERROR_NO_CIPHER' was not declared in this scope >> This one was only ever used in the SSLv2 implementation. Since no one >> uses SSLv2 any more and it is considered highly insecure its >> implementation was removed

Re: Regarding #def for 'SSL_R_PEER_ERROR_NO_CIPHER' and 'SSL_R_NO_CERTIFICATE_RETURNED' in openssl3.0

2020-12-07 Thread Jakob Bohm via openssl-users
On 07/12/2020 12:39, Matt Caswell wrote: On 04/12/2020 13:28, Narayana, Sunil Kumar wrote: Hi,     We are trying to upgrade our application from openssl usage of 1.0.2 to openssl 3.0, during which we observe following errors. Looks like the below #def been removed from 1.1

Re: Regarding #def for 'SSL_R_PEER_ERROR_NO_CIPHER' and 'SSL_R_NO_CERTIFICATE_RETURNED' in openssl3.0

2020-12-07 Thread Matt Caswell
On 04/12/2020 13:28, Narayana, Sunil Kumar wrote: > Hi, > >     We are trying to upgrade our application from openssl > usage of 1.0.2 to openssl 3.0, during which we observe following errors. > > Looks like the below #def been removed from 1.1 onwards, Should > application also

Regarding #def for 'SSL_R_PEER_ERROR_NO_CIPHER' and 'SSL_R_NO_CERTIFICATE_RETURNED' in openssl3.0

2020-12-04 Thread Narayana, Sunil Kumar
Hi, We are trying to upgrade our application from openssl usage of 1.0.2 to openssl 3.0, during which we observe following errors. Looks like the below #def been removed from 1.1 onwards, Should application also need to take off from its usage ? or is there any alternative to be

Regarding #def for 'SSL_R_PEER_ERROR_NO_CIPHER' and 'SSL_R_NO_CERTIFICATE_RETURNED' in openssl3.0

2020-11-27 Thread Narayana, Sunil Kumar
Hi, We are trying to upgrade our application from openssl usage of 1.0.2 to openssl 3.0, during which we observe following errors. Looks like the below #def been removed from 1.1 onwards, Should application also need to take off from its usage ? or is there any alternative to be