I agree with Viktor. His suggestion (keep RC4 in MEDIUM, suppress it
explicilty in DEFAULT) is a good one that maintains important backward
compatibility while providing the desired removal of RC4 by default. There's
no advantage to moving RC4 to LOW.
Sure there is: it's an accurate
All sorts of things can be done. Clearly, in the Brave New World of well-
funded OpenSSL, they'll have to be, because it's apparent that we're going to
see a lot of disruptive change made on the flimsiest of pretexts, with
objections from the user community brushed aside. That's your
On 11/02/2015 16:46, Salz, Rich wrote:
I agree with Viktor. His suggestion (keep RC4 in MEDIUM, suppress it
explicilty in DEFAULT) is a good one that maintains important backward
compatibility while providing the desired removal of RC4 by default. There's
no advantage to moving RC4 to LOW.
Sure
From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
Of Salz, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:47
To: openssl-users@openssl.org; openssl-...@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for
post-1.0.2
I agree with Viktor.
From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
Of Viktor Dukhovni
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 21:01
To: openssl-...@openssl.org; openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for
post-1.0.2
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015
From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
Of Salz, Rich
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 13:26
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for
post-1.0.2
All sorts of things can be done. Clearly, in the
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:59:22PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
On Tuesday 10 February 2015 21:46:46 Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:15:36PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
I would like to make the following changes in the cipher specs, in the
master branch, which is planned for
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:46:54PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
I agree with Viktor. His suggestion (keep RC4 in MEDIUM, suppress it
explicitly in DEFAULT) is a good one that maintains important backward
compatibility while providing the desired removal of RC4 by default. There's
no advantage
The changelog (file CHANGES) in the 1.0.2 tarball contains
some confusingdifferences fromthe one in 1.0.1l.
Specifically:
The 1.0.2 changelog seems to indicate that a few bugs that
were fixed in the 1.0.1 branch were not fixed in the 1.0.2
branch (dtls1_get_record segmentation fault,
From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Jörg Eyring
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:44
I'm generating a certificate request and the necessary entries are added
with:
...
if(!X509_NAME_add_entry_by_txt(subj,C, MBSTRING_ASC, (unsigned
char *) CountryName,-1,-1,0)) snip
Sorry, if my post shows up several times - I had some problems with my mail
client ;-)
It was meant to posted only once...
Jörg
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Hi all,
I'm generating a certificate request and the necessary entries are added with:
...
if(!X509_NAME_add_entry_by_txt(subj,C, MBSTRING_ASC, (unsigned char *)
CountryName,-1,-1,0))
...
if(!X509_NAME_add_entry_by_txt(subj,O, MBSTRING_ASC, (unsigned char *)
OrganizationName,-1,-1,0))
...
Hello Openssl users,
I have a query on d2i_PUBKEY() and i2d_PUBKEY().
i have a EC public key in form of character buffer.
Have inputted this character buffer to d2i_PUBKEY() and got EVP_PKEY format
EC key.
Now i tried to input this EVP_PKEY to i2d_PUBKEY() to compare will i get
exactly same
13 matches
Mail list logo
